Registration of Cultivar Names in Ulmus - Arnoldia - Harvard ...
Registration of Cultivar Names in Ulmus - Arnoldia - Harvard ...
Registration of Cultivar Names in Ulmus - Arnoldia - Harvard ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
ARNOLDIA<br />
A cont<strong>in</strong>uation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
BULLETIN OF POPULAR INFORMATION<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Arnold Arboretum, <strong>Harvard</strong> University<br />
VOLUME 24 JULY 24, 1964 NUMBERS 6-8<br />
REGISTRATION OF CULTIVAR NAMES IN ULMUS<br />
P. S. GREEN -<br />
[<br />
41 1<br />
-- --<br />
THE COMPILATION OF A LIST OF CULTIVAR names <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ulmus</strong> has proved more<br />
complex than might at first have been expected. One <strong>of</strong> the primary reasons for<br />
this is that with<strong>in</strong> the genus there is no unanimity <strong>of</strong> op<strong>in</strong>ion<br />
over the delimitation<br />
<strong>of</strong> species or the extent <strong>of</strong> spontaneous hybridization. However, several species<br />
numerous varieties have<br />
have been <strong>in</strong> cultivation for centuries and, with<strong>in</strong> these,<br />
arisen. This contrasts with the situation <strong>in</strong> Fagus, the subject <strong>of</strong> the most recent<br />
registration list to be published (<strong>Arnoldia</strong> 24 ( 1 ) : 1-8. 1964) where only one<br />
species was <strong>in</strong>volved and where there were no problems <strong>of</strong> specific identity; <strong>in</strong><br />
Uhnus the identity <strong>of</strong> cultivars is <strong>of</strong>ten masked by confused synonymy at the<br />
specific level.<br />
The list <strong>of</strong> names which follows is primarily bibliographic <strong>in</strong> nature, giv<strong>in</strong>g<br />
reference to the first place <strong>of</strong> publication that has been discovered for each name.<br />
Ideally, perhaps, its formation should have gone hand <strong>in</strong> hand with attempts to<br />
f<strong>in</strong>d and study authentic material <strong>of</strong> each clone so that correct specific identities<br />
could have been ascerta<strong>in</strong>ed and many questions <strong>of</strong> synonymy resolved. However,<br />
it was never <strong>in</strong>tended that the compilation should be accompanied by a taxonomic<br />
revision <strong>of</strong> the genus <strong>Ulmus</strong>, and it must be stressed that the list, as published, is<br />
almost completely based on the literature and not on the plants themselves.<br />
That it may be dangerous to <strong>in</strong>clude taxonomic op<strong>in</strong>ions <strong>in</strong> a purely bibliographic<br />
list <strong>of</strong> names is illustrated by the mislead<strong>in</strong>g attempts to <strong>in</strong>clude synonymy<br />
first volumes and supplements <strong>of</strong> the Index Kewensis. Nevertheless, <strong>in</strong> draw<strong>in</strong>g<br />
up this list <strong>of</strong> names <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ulmus</strong>, evidence <strong>of</strong> synonymy and specific identity has<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten come to hand and it would be wrong not to mention it for the benefit <strong>of</strong><br />
other workers. It should be understood, however, that such <strong>in</strong>formation is given<br />
<strong>in</strong> the
solely as a guide and is only very occasionally<br />
based on the sure evidence <strong>of</strong><br />
authentic material. In a few cases there appear to be conflict<strong>in</strong>g op<strong>in</strong>ions as to<br />
the correct species to which a particular clone belongs, but, fortunately, with<br />
the names <strong>of</strong> cultivars all that is essential is the name <strong>of</strong> the genus followed by<br />
that <strong>of</strong> the clone, e.g. <strong>Ulmus</strong> ’Acutifolia’ (or elm ’Acutifolia’), to take the first<br />
name <strong>in</strong> the list below. In this way, therefore, the few examples <strong>of</strong> conflict<strong>in</strong>g<br />
identities cited <strong>in</strong> the text that follows may be referred to as <strong>Ulmus</strong> ’Argenteo-<br />
marg<strong>in</strong>ata’, U. ’Christ<strong>in</strong>e Buisman’, U. ’Klemmer’ and U. ’Lombartsii’, or, where<br />
the species is uncerta<strong>in</strong> because <strong>of</strong> juvenile or other atypical foliage,<br />
’Myrtifolia’ and U. ’Nana’.<br />
Where reliable <strong>in</strong>formation on identity or synonymy is given<br />
42<br />
as <strong>Ulmus</strong><br />
it is <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
attributable to two correspondents to whom I would like to express my most<br />
s<strong>in</strong>cere and grateful thanks. Dr. R. Melville, <strong>of</strong> the Royal Botanic Gardens at<br />
Kew, has given me much help and has k<strong>in</strong>dly looked over an early draft <strong>of</strong> the<br />
cases he has exam<strong>in</strong>ed material <strong>in</strong> the Nicholson<br />
registration list. In many<br />
Herbarium at Kew and has personal knowledge <strong>of</strong> the liv<strong>in</strong>g<br />
trees. Much <strong>of</strong> the<br />
evidence <strong>of</strong> his help will be seen here and there <strong>in</strong> the list, <strong>in</strong> the comments after<br />
various names. To Mr. H. M. Heijbroek, <strong>of</strong> the Sticht<strong>in</strong>g Bosbouwproefstation<br />
’De Dorschkamp’, Baarn, Netherlands, I am likewise greatly<br />
<strong>in</strong>debted. To him<br />
I also sent an early draft <strong>of</strong> the list and from him received many wise comments,<br />
several additional names and much <strong>in</strong>formation concern<strong>in</strong>g the elms <strong>of</strong> the Nether-<br />
lands and adjo<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g regions. Though this list would have been considerably<br />
poorer without the help <strong>of</strong> Mr. Heijbroek and Dr. Melville, any mistakes, errors,<br />
and omissions are attributable to me and the responsibility for the op<strong>in</strong>ions<br />
expressed is m<strong>in</strong>e alone. I should also like to take the opportunity to thank<br />
numerous nurserymen and other correspondents who have cooperated and helped<br />
with <strong>in</strong>formation about the orig<strong>in</strong> <strong>of</strong> various cultivars and the publication <strong>of</strong> their<br />
names, together with the provision, <strong>in</strong> many cases, <strong>of</strong> liv<strong>in</strong>g plants or specimens.<br />
These correspondents are too numerous to mention personally but the nurseries<br />
they represent are <strong>of</strong>ten cited <strong>in</strong> the list which follows and my appreciative thanks<br />
is expressed to them all.<br />
The taxonomy <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ulmus</strong> is far from simple and there is no general unanimity<br />
over the correct botanical names. Dr. Melville, <strong>of</strong> Kew, has studied the genus for<br />
many years, especially <strong>in</strong> Brita<strong>in</strong>, where the situation appears to be most complex,<br />
and a number <strong>of</strong> papers have presented some <strong>of</strong> the conclusions he has reached.<br />
other botanists and the<br />
However, these conclusions are still be<strong>in</strong>g debated by<br />
resultant lack <strong>of</strong> agreement, while it does not affect the names <strong>of</strong> cultivars, does<br />
be attributed is<br />
mean that the nomenclature <strong>of</strong> the species to which they may<br />
unstable. In an attempt to overcome this difficulty I have endeavored, wherever<br />
a name used by Melville is different from that given by Rehder <strong>in</strong> his Manual <strong>of</strong><br />
Cultivated Trees ~a Shrubs (ed. 2, 1940) to give both names as equivalent<br />
synonyms. In this way it is hoped that cultivars can be placed <strong>in</strong> their botanical<br />
species correctly, whether the more revolutionary<br />
classification <strong>of</strong> Melville is<br />
followed or the widely known arrangement as published by Rehder.<br />
Because <strong>of</strong> the frequent difficulty <strong>in</strong> ascerta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g positively the species to
which a cultivar should be assigned, it has been deemed advisable <strong>in</strong> this list to<br />
arrange the names <strong>in</strong> one s<strong>in</strong>gle alphabetical series. Previous registration lists<br />
published <strong>in</strong> this journal (with the exception <strong>of</strong> that <strong>of</strong> Fagus)<br />
43<br />
have listed the<br />
species alphabetically with the appropriate cultivars arranged under each specific<br />
name. In the list which follows the specific identity, or suggested identity, is<br />
given (<strong>in</strong> italic type) at the end <strong>of</strong> the paragraph which follows each accepted<br />
name. Such accepted names are pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> LARGE and SMALL CAPITALS, while<br />
synonyms are listed <strong>in</strong> Roman type, followed after the bibliographic reference,<br />
by an <strong>in</strong>dication <strong>of</strong> the name to which it is believed it should be applied.<br />
In the majority <strong>of</strong> cases only a s<strong>in</strong>gle reference is given after each name: that <strong>of</strong><br />
the first pr<strong>in</strong>ted publication <strong>of</strong> the name that has been discovered; but where this<br />
was not accompanied by a description, the first reference is followed <strong>in</strong> the list by<br />
a second, <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g where the first description was provided. Most <strong>of</strong> the names<br />
<strong>in</strong> the list are <strong>in</strong> Lat<strong>in</strong> form, governable by<br />
the International Code <strong>of</strong> Botanical<br />
Nomenclature, but more recently, and <strong>in</strong> a relatively few cases, some <strong>of</strong> these<br />
Lat<strong>in</strong> names have been formally proposed at the rank <strong>of</strong> cultivar; where this has<br />
also been done, additional reference is given to the first such publication.<br />
lists <strong>of</strong> cultivars<br />
It has been the experience <strong>of</strong> colleagues compil<strong>in</strong>g registration<br />
that each new list raises problems which have not previously been apparent.<br />
This elm list is no exception and a po<strong>in</strong>t which has first arisen with this list is the<br />
realization that the word "hybrid" is unsuitable as part<br />
<strong>of</strong> a cultivar name.<br />
Article 21 <strong>of</strong> the International Code <strong>of</strong> Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (1961)<br />
makes it <strong>in</strong>admissible to <strong>in</strong>clude the words "variety"<br />
and "form" <strong>in</strong> new cultivar<br />
names. To this article should be added the word "hybrid" (see ’Broadleaf<br />
Hybrid’ <strong>in</strong> the list below) and a proposal to this effect has been made to the<br />
Secretary<br />
<strong>of</strong> the International Commission for the Nomenclature <strong>of</strong> Cultivated<br />
Plants, for consideration when amendments to the Code are next discussed. In<br />
addition to this, it has seemed to me, that as cultivar names may correctly be<br />
associated with generic names and <strong>in</strong> either Lat<strong>in</strong> or a modern language, it is<br />
<strong>in</strong>advisable to <strong>in</strong>clude the actual name <strong>of</strong> the genus <strong>in</strong> any new name. The name<br />
’Hunt<strong>in</strong>gdon Elm’ was formally proposed<br />
<strong>in</strong> 1961 but when cited as "elm<br />
’Hunt<strong>in</strong>gdon Elm’ we have a mild tautonym; the word "Hunt<strong>in</strong>gdon" alone<br />
would have been preferable. It is doubtful whether a formal proposal for the<br />
amendment <strong>of</strong> the Code is necessary to guard aga<strong>in</strong>st this, for Article 21a may<br />
it is clear that<br />
possibly be <strong>in</strong>terpreted as prevent<strong>in</strong>g such tautonymy, even though<br />
the <strong>in</strong>tention <strong>of</strong> the article was to outlaw the <strong>in</strong>clusion <strong>of</strong> names <strong>of</strong> other genera<br />
<strong>in</strong> those <strong>of</strong> a cultivar.<br />
Another po<strong>in</strong>t which has arisen <strong>in</strong> the compilation <strong>of</strong> this list is the problem <strong>of</strong><br />
Lat<strong>in</strong> names proposed<br />
clature for Cultivated Plants has a start<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>in</strong> the ablative case. The International Code <strong>of</strong> Nomen-<br />
date earlier than that <strong>of</strong> the Botanical<br />
Code: that <strong>of</strong> the sixth edition <strong>of</strong> Philip Miller’s The Gardeners Dictionary, 1752.<br />
have been taken from that work for<br />
Several names (e.g. eleganter variegato)<br />
<strong>in</strong>clusion <strong>in</strong> this list but the nomenclature is not b<strong>in</strong>omial and the names take the<br />
form <strong>of</strong> descriptive phrases. However, the use <strong>of</strong> the ablative case <strong>in</strong> Lat<strong>in</strong><br />
names did not end with the establishment <strong>of</strong> b<strong>in</strong>omial nomenclature, but,
especially for varieties based on leaf color, cont<strong>in</strong>ued throughout the 19th century.<br />
In this list the liberty has been taken to make these names agree grammatically<br />
with the generic name Ulmvs. Authority is given <strong>in</strong> the Code for Cultivated Plants<br />
(Art. 16) to correct names <strong>in</strong> Lat<strong>in</strong> form which are not <strong>in</strong> accordance with the<br />
Rules and Recommendations <strong>of</strong> the Botanical Code and although the case <strong>of</strong><br />
names <strong>in</strong> the ablative is not cited, the article is considered as grant<strong>in</strong>g authority for<br />
such changes.<br />
It has several times proved difficult to decide what actually constitutes a name<br />
<strong>in</strong>tended for what is today called a cultivar. <strong>Ulmus</strong> ’Modiol<strong>in</strong>a’ was referred to as<br />
"1’orme tortillard" by Duhamel du Monceau as early as 1804 (Traite Arb. Arbust.<br />
ed. 2. 2: 144). Should ’Tortillard’, therefore, have been listed below, or is it<br />
Duhamel’s descriptive "common" name, comparable to the name "Fernleaf Elm"<br />
( <strong>Ulmus</strong> ’Crispa’)? Similar <strong>in</strong> some ways are the numerous specimen trees which<br />
have been given <strong>in</strong>dividual names from time to time, usually based on those <strong>of</strong> the<br />
places or family estates <strong>in</strong> which they were grow<strong>in</strong>g, but <strong>of</strong>ten named for their<br />
historic associations. This is particularly true <strong>of</strong> several f<strong>in</strong>e examples <strong>of</strong> U.<br />
americana <strong>in</strong> the eastern U.S.A. but it is believed that because they have been<br />
propagated clonally, only two have warranted <strong>in</strong>clusion <strong>in</strong> this list (’Markham’<br />
and ’Wash<strong>in</strong>gton’). It is <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g to note that these two are not dist<strong>in</strong>guished<br />
by any special morphological characteristics and that they are dist<strong>in</strong>ct solely by<br />
virtue <strong>of</strong> the place where they were orig<strong>in</strong>ally grow<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
In contrast to this there are almost a certa<strong>in</strong>ly number <strong>of</strong> cultivars which have<br />
never been named. This was po<strong>in</strong>ted out to me by Mr. Heijbroek, for elms have<br />
been propagated and grown as roadside trees <strong>in</strong> the Netherlands and Flanders for<br />
many centuries. Many <strong>of</strong> these clones have received names which have been<br />
published, e.g. ’Klemmer’ and ’Mal<strong>in</strong>es’, but there are others as yet unnamed and<br />
unlisted. In one case, that <strong>of</strong> ’Schuurhoek’, one <strong>of</strong> these nameless clones has been<br />
retaken <strong>in</strong>to cultivation relatively recently and named.<br />
Decisions about the synonymy <strong>of</strong> the many cultivars dist<strong>in</strong>guished by their leaf<br />
variation or habit <strong>of</strong> growth have been very difficult to reach. It is possible that at<br />
different times more than one clone has been known by the same name and dur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the last two hundred years or so very similar sports may have arisen more than<br />
once <strong>in</strong> each species. Any <strong>in</strong>formation which will help clarify the identity <strong>of</strong><br />
these plants will be most welcome.<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to the International Code <strong>of</strong> Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants,<br />
a particular name can be correct for only one cultivar, and, if it has been given<br />
to more than one, the other usages must be treated as synonyms. In the list that<br />
follows it will be readily seen that certa<strong>in</strong> names have been used over and over<br />
aga<strong>in</strong> for different clones (for example ’Pendula’ has been proposed eight times).<br />
Fortunately the Code for Cultivated Plants does not b<strong>in</strong>d one rigidly to a rule <strong>of</strong><br />
priority, as does the Botanical Code, and by the selection <strong>of</strong> a later well known<br />
name it has <strong>of</strong>ten been possible to reduce the duplication <strong>of</strong> acceptable names.<br />
However, <strong>in</strong> other cases this has proved impossible. The obvious way out would<br />
be to propose new names to replace the duplicates,<br />
but there is a chance that<br />
some <strong>of</strong> the clones no longer exist and such names would then be superfluous.<br />
[ 44
It is believed that it would be wrong, <strong>in</strong> a bibliographic compilation such as this,<br />
to propose new names, either because the plants may no longer be <strong>in</strong> cultivation<br />
anywhere or because the study <strong>of</strong> liv<strong>in</strong>g material may yet show that some <strong>of</strong> the<br />
duplicate names are <strong>in</strong> fact synonyms <strong>of</strong> others which are unambiguous.<br />
For the<br />
present at least all that is necessary for precision is the citation <strong>of</strong> the name <strong>of</strong> the<br />
species as well as that <strong>of</strong> the genus. Whenever possible <strong>in</strong> this registration list<br />
alternative names have been chosen to reduce synonymy but <strong>in</strong> the follow<strong>in</strong>g<br />
eight cases this has proved impracticable. ’Argenteo-variegata’ is a well known<br />
name <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ulmus</strong> procera, but amongst other plants it has also been used as the<br />
name for a white-variegated form which is probably assignable to U. X vim<strong>in</strong>alis,<br />
yet is possibly no longer <strong>in</strong> cultivation. ’Aurea’ is also known as the name for a<br />
cultivar <strong>of</strong> U. procera, and is one <strong>of</strong> the relatively few that have been formally<br />
proposed as such at this rank, but it clashes with a variety<br />
has no synonym and may not be <strong>in</strong> cultivation today. ’Aureo-variegata’<br />
<strong>of</strong> U. americana which<br />
has been<br />
used for clones <strong>in</strong> three different species ( U. X hollandica, U. laevis and U. X<br />
vim<strong>in</strong>alis) and for all three there are no published synonyms.<br />
45 ]<br />
With the name<br />
’Pendula’ the duplication has been reduced <strong>in</strong> most cases by tak<strong>in</strong>g up synonyms,<br />
but <strong>in</strong> both U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia and U. pumila, ’Pendula’ has been formally proposed<br />
as a cultivar name and <strong>in</strong> neither case is there a known synonym. Similarly there<br />
are no known alternatives for ’Pyramidalis’ <strong>of</strong> either Audibert or Gibbs, although<br />
the identity <strong>of</strong> the former is somewhat dubious. In ’Rugosa’ two authorities and<br />
references are listed below but there is possible doubt about their dist<strong>in</strong>ctness, the<br />
published descriptions be<strong>in</strong>g hardly diagnostic. Lastly, <strong>in</strong> ’Variegata’, although<br />
the name has been proposed some seven different times, five <strong>of</strong> them are disposed<br />
<strong>of</strong> as synonyms <strong>of</strong> other names, but <strong>of</strong> the two which rema<strong>in</strong>, one is little known<br />
and perhaps misidentified as to species <strong>in</strong> this list, whilst the other may well have<br />
been used at different times for more than one clone <strong>of</strong> U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
Many names have been considered for <strong>in</strong>clusion and rejected on the grounds<br />
that either the botanical rank <strong>of</strong> varietas is most appropriate<br />
or because the<br />
plants have never been <strong>in</strong> cultivation. All authorities list <strong>Ulmus</strong> pumila L. var.<br />
arborea Litv<strong>in</strong>ov ( U. p<strong>in</strong>nato-ramosa Dieck) as a botanical variety yet it is possible<br />
that, <strong>in</strong> modem terms, it does not warrant recognition at this rank but is a variant<br />
<strong>of</strong> U. pumila ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed and known only <strong>in</strong> cultivation, and therefore best treated<br />
as a cultivar. There is a widespread misunderstand<strong>in</strong>g that all cultivars must<br />
have arisen <strong>in</strong> cultivation. It is agreed that this is true <strong>in</strong> the vast majority <strong>of</strong><br />
cases, but all that is required for recognition as a cultivar is that the plant be<br />
under cultivation, unsuitable for treatment at any <strong>of</strong> the taxonomic ranks under<br />
the Botanical Code, yet <strong>in</strong> need <strong>of</strong> a dist<strong>in</strong>ctive name.<br />
F<strong>in</strong>ally, some comment should be made about the <strong>in</strong>clusion <strong>of</strong> the epithets<br />
on branches is<br />
fungosa and suberosa <strong>in</strong> the list. The development <strong>of</strong> corky w<strong>in</strong>gs<br />
a juvenile character which has appeared <strong>in</strong> different <strong>in</strong>dividual plants <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ulmus</strong><br />
carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia and other related elms. There is no doubt that the name suberosa<br />
has been applied to cultivated clones, but not always to the same one. As a<br />
name it should be dropped from use, except perhaps at the botanical rank <strong>of</strong><br />
be exhibited<br />
forma, yet even there it is hardly appropriate. The corky w<strong>in</strong>gs may
y sucker shoots throughout the life <strong>of</strong> the plant yet they are still primarily a<br />
juvenile character and as such are comparable with the Ret<strong>in</strong>ospora-forms <strong>of</strong><br />
conifers.<br />
A list <strong>of</strong> this size and can type hardly be compiled without some errors and<br />
mis<strong>in</strong>terpretations, and for this reason any comments, corrections or additions<br />
will be gratefully received. It is hoped, however, that this registration list will<br />
help towards nomenclatural stability for the numerous cultivated varieties and at<br />
the very least, will aid <strong>in</strong> prevent<strong>in</strong>g future duplication.<br />
BOTANICAL NAMES AND THEIR AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO IN THE<br />
REGISTRATION LIST<br />
<strong>Ulmus</strong> americana L.<br />
U. angustifolia (Weston) Weston var. cornubiensis (Weston) Melville (U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia<br />
Gled. var. cornubiensis (Weston) Rehder)<br />
U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia Gleditsch<br />
U. X elegantissima Horwood (U. glabra Huds. X plotii Druce)<br />
U. glabra Hudson<br />
U. X hollandica Miller ( U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia Gled. X glabra Huds. X plotii Druce )<br />
U. laevis Pallas<br />
U. parvifolia Jacqu<strong>in</strong><br />
U. procera Salisbury<br />
U. pumila L.<br />
U. rubra Muhlenberg<br />
U. X sarniensis (Loudon) Bancr<strong>of</strong>t ( U. angustifolia ( West. ) West. X hollandica<br />
Mill. )<br />
( U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia Gled. forma sarniensis ( Loud. ) Rehd. )<br />
U. X vegeta (Loud.) L<strong>in</strong>dley ( U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia Gled. X glabra Huds. )<br />
( U. X hollandica Mill. var. vegeta (Loud.) Rehd.)<br />
U. X vim<strong>in</strong>alis Loddiges (U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia Gled. X plotii Druce)<br />
( U. procera Salisb. var. vim<strong>in</strong>alis (Lodd.) Rehd.)<br />
REGISTRATION LIST OF CULTIVARS IN ULMUS<br />
~ACUTIFOLIA~ (Masters, Hort. Duroverni 66. 1831, as U. campestris acutifolia,<br />
without description; Mottet <strong>in</strong> Nicholson & Mottet, Diet. Prat. Hort. 5: 383.<br />
the leaves <strong>of</strong> mature trees narrower and the branches<br />
1898. Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g<br />
more pendulous. U. procera.<br />
46
‘Adiantifolia’ (Kirchner <strong>in</strong> Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 563. 1864, as U.<br />
adiantifolia Hort., name <strong>in</strong> synonymy) = ’CRISPA’.<br />
’ALATA’ (Kirchner <strong>in</strong> Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 566. 1864, as "U. montana<br />
alata," without description). Possibly a juvenile form <strong>of</strong> U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia, (see<br />
under suberosa ) .<br />
’ALBA’ (Kirchner <strong>in</strong> Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 559. 1864, as U. fulva<br />
Hort. var. alba Hort., without description). A specimen <strong>in</strong> Herb. Nicholson at<br />
Kew has been identified by Dr. Melville as a rather broad leaved U. X vegeta<br />
(that is U. X hollandica var. vegeta sensu Rehder).<br />
’Alba’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 6. 286. 1958, as U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia sarniensis alba ) .<br />
Mistake for sarniensis aurea = ’DICKSONII’.<br />
‘ALBO-DENTATA’ (Baudriller, Angers, France, Cat. 43, p. 117. 1880, as U. microphylla<br />
foliis albo-dentatis, without description). Called the small-leaved elm<br />
with silver teeth. Later described as a small tree, the leaves with white marg<strong>in</strong>s<br />
and spots. U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
‘ALBO-VARIEGATA’ (Weston, Bot. Univ. 1: 315. 1770, as U. glabra var. albovarieg.<br />
) . Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g leaves striped with white. U. glabra.<br />
’Albo-variegata’ (Weston, Bot. Univ. 1: 315. 1770, as U. hollandica var. albovarieg.)<br />
= ’ELEGANTO-VARIEGATA’.<br />
‘ALxsuTx’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. 1885, p. 81, as U. scabra<br />
forma von Alksuth Hort.). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g acute-rounded leaves with a<br />
number <strong>of</strong>, sometimes almost thread-like, teeth. Possibly U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’AMPLIFOLIA’ (Meded. Comite Best. Bestr. Iepenz. 10: 9. 1932, as U. foliacea<br />
var. amplifolia [not seen] ) . Received from Hesse’s Nurseries, Weener, Germany,<br />
and said to have very short <strong>in</strong>ternodes with crowded leaves. U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
‘ANDROSSOWII’ (Litv<strong>in</strong>ov <strong>in</strong> Sched. Herb. Fl. Ross. 8: 23, no. 2445. t. 2. 1922, as<br />
U. Androssowi). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g a very dense spherical crown and pubescent<br />
leaves. Used as a street tree <strong>in</strong> Samarkand <strong>in</strong> 1913. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Loz<strong>in</strong>a-<br />
Loz<strong>in</strong>skaia (<strong>in</strong> Sokolov, Trees & Shrubs <strong>in</strong> the U.S.S.R. [<strong>in</strong> Russian] 2: 506.<br />
1951) unknown <strong>in</strong> the wild and apparently a hybrid between U. densa and<br />
U. pumila.<br />
‘ANGUSTIFOLIA’ (Weston, Bot. Univ. 1: 315. 1770, as U. hollandica var. angustif<br />
olia ) . Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g narrow leaves. U. X hollandica.<br />
’ANSALONI’ (Ansaloni Nurseries, Bologna, Italy, Cat. 1935, p. 23, as "Olmo<br />
Siberiano Ansaloni"). Said to have been <strong>in</strong>troduced from the Far East about<br />
1930 and to be a quick grow<strong>in</strong>g variant with a compact crown which holds<br />
its leaves well <strong>in</strong>to the autumn. U. pumila.<br />
’Antarctica’ (Kirchner <strong>in</strong> Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 551. 1864, as U.<br />
antarctica Hort.) = ’VIMINALIS’.<br />
47 *
’Antarctica Aurea’ (Hartwig, Ill. Geholzb. ed. 2. 391. 1892, as U. campestris<br />
var. antarctica aurea A.M.). Described as a golden-colored ’Antarctica’, =<br />
’AUREA’.<br />
’Antarctica Pendula’ (Hartwig, Ill. Geholzb. ed. 2. 391. 1892, as U. campestris<br />
var. antarctica pendula Hort.). Described as the pendulous ‘Antarctica’, _<br />
’VIMINALIS’?<br />
’Argentea’ (Bean, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs, ed. 3. 275. 1925, as U. vim<strong>in</strong>alis<br />
var. argentea, without description). = ’VIMINALIS MARGINATA’.<br />
’Argenteo-maculata’ (Audibert, Tonelle, France, Cat. 1817, p. 23, as U. campestris<br />
var. argenteo-maculata, without description ) . Referred to as the striped elm.<br />
= U. procera ’ARGENTEO-VARIEGATA’?<br />
’ARGENTEO-MARGINATA’ (Deegen <strong>in</strong> Deutsch. Mag. Gart. Blumenk. 1879: 60. pl.<br />
1879, as U. campestris elegans argenteo-marg<strong>in</strong>atis). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
leaves bordered with white, and <strong>in</strong> a later reference, as rather strongly rough,<br />
weakly hairy below, measur<strong>in</strong>g 6-8 by 3-4 cm. U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia or, possibly,<br />
U. X hollandica.<br />
’Argenteo-marmorata’ (Schelle <strong>in</strong> Beissner et al., Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 83.<br />
1903, as U. campestris argenteo-marmorata Hort., without description)<br />
’MARMORATA’.<br />
’ARGENTEO-VARIEGATA’ (Weston, Bot. Univ. 1: 314. 1770, as U. campestris<br />
argenteo-var.; Kriissmann <strong>in</strong> Parey’s Blumengartn. ed. 2. 1: 519. 1958, as a<br />
cv.). Said to have orig<strong>in</strong>ated <strong>in</strong> England by 1677 and to have leaves striped and<br />
spotted with white. U. procera.<br />
’ARGENTEO-VARIEGATA’ (Weston, Bot. Univ. 1: 314. 1770, as U. campestris var.<br />
angustifolia argenteo-var.). Described as the silver-striped, narrow-roughleaved<br />
Elm. Probably a cultivar <strong>of</strong> U. X vim<strong>in</strong>alis ( U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia X plotii,<br />
that is U. procera var. vim<strong>in</strong>alis sensu Rehder) and then possibly =<br />
MARGINATA’.<br />
[<br />
48 8<br />
’VIMINALIs<br />
’Argenteo-variegata’ (Bean, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs, ed. 3. 273. 1925, as<br />
U. nitens var. argenteo-variegata, without description ) - U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia<br />
’VARIEGATA’.<br />
’Argenteo-variegata’ (Weston, Fl. Angl. 46. 1775, as U. glabra var. argenteo-<br />
variegata) =<br />
U. glabra ‘ALBO-VARIEGATA’.<br />
’Argenteo-variegata’ (Weston, Fl. Angl. 46. 1775, as U. belgica var. argenteovariegata)<br />
= ’ELEGANTO-VARIEGATA’.<br />
’ASCENDENS’ ( Slav<strong>in</strong>, Am. Midl. Nat. 12: 225. 1931, as a form). Lateral branches<br />
small and fastigiate, form<strong>in</strong>g a narrow oval head. Name given orig<strong>in</strong>ally to a<br />
tree grow<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>in</strong> 1927, <strong>in</strong> Seneca Park, Rochester, New York. U. americana.<br />
‘ASPERA’ (Loddiges, Hackney, London, Cat. 1823, p. 35, as U. stricta aspera,<br />
without description). Possibly U. procera.
’Asplenifolia’ (Rehder <strong>in</strong> Bailey, Cycl. Amer. Hort. (4): 1881. 1902, as U. asplenif<br />
olia Hort., <strong>in</strong> synonymy) = ’CRISPA’.<br />
‘ATROruRruREA’ ( Spath, Berl<strong>in</strong>, Germany, Cat. 55, p. 2. 1882, as U. montana<br />
atropurpurea; Boom, Ned. Dendr. 1: 157. 1959, as a cv.). Said to have dark<br />
purple, folded leaves, and to have orig<strong>in</strong>ated <strong>in</strong> Germany<br />
49 ]<br />
about 1881. U.<br />
glabra.<br />
’AUGUSTINE’ (Proc. Am. Assoc. Nurserymen 174. 1951 [Woody Plant Register<br />
No. 267] ). Orig<strong>in</strong>ated by selection at Bloom<strong>in</strong>gton, Ill<strong>in</strong>ois, <strong>in</strong> 1927. Described<br />
elsewhere as differ<strong>in</strong>g most strik<strong>in</strong>gly <strong>in</strong> its fastigiate habit, more vigorous<br />
growth, stouter twigs and larger, more deeply toothed leaves. U. americana.<br />
’August<strong>in</strong>e Ascend<strong>in</strong>g’ (Weston <strong>in</strong> Horticulture, II. 30: 448. 1952) = ’AUGUSTINE’.<br />
‘AuREA’ (Temple ex Rehder <strong>in</strong> Bailey, Cycl. Amer. Hort. (4): 1880. 1902, as a<br />
var.). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g yellow foliage and orig<strong>in</strong>ally found <strong>in</strong> Vermont by<br />
F. L. Temple. U. americana.<br />
‘AUREA’ (Morren <strong>in</strong> Belg. Hort. 16: 356. t. 19. 1866, as U. campestris var. aurea;<br />
Kriissmann <strong>in</strong> Parey’s Blumengartn. ed. 2. 1: 519. 1958, as a cv.). Described<br />
as hav<strong>in</strong>g golden-yellow leaves, occasionally approach<strong>in</strong>g bronze, branchlets<br />
droop<strong>in</strong>g. Orig<strong>in</strong>ated by Mr. Egide Rosseels at Loewen <strong>in</strong> Belgium<br />
about the<br />
middle <strong>of</strong> the last century. U. X vim<strong>in</strong>alis (that is U. procera var. vim<strong>in</strong>alis<br />
sensu Rehder).<br />
’Aurea’ ( Hillier and Sons, W<strong>in</strong>chester, England, Cat. Autumn 1914 - Spr<strong>in</strong>g 1915,<br />
p. 24, as U. campestris sarniensis aurea). Dickson’s Golden Elm = ’DICKSONII’.<br />
’Aurea Roezlii’ (James Dickson, Chester, England, Cat. 340, p. 38. 1887, as<br />
U. campestris aurea Roezlii). Probably an error for aurea Rosseelsii = ’Ros-<br />
SEELSII’.<br />
‘AUREO-VARIEGATA’ (Weston, Bot. Univ. 1: 315. 1770,<br />
as U. hollandica var.<br />
aureo-varieg.). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g leaves variegated with yellow. U. X<br />
hollandica.<br />
‘AUREO-VARIEGATA’ ( Schelle <strong>in</strong> Beissner et al., Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 87. 1903,<br />
as U. effusa f. aureo-variegata Hort., without description; Henry <strong>in</strong> Elwes &<br />
Henry, Trees Gr. Brit. Irel. 7: 1853. 1913). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g leaves spotted<br />
with yellow. U. laevis.<br />
’Aureo-variegata’ (Weston, Bot. Univ. 1: 314. 1770, as U. campestris aureo-var. )<br />
= ’FOLIA AUREA’.<br />
’AUREO-VARIEGATA’ (Weston, Bot. Univ. 1: 315. 1770, as LI. campestris var.<br />
angustifolia aureo-varieg. ) . Described as the gold-striped narrow-rough-leaved<br />
Elm. Probably a cultivar <strong>of</strong> U. X vim<strong>in</strong>alis (that is U. procera var. vim<strong>in</strong>alis<br />
sensu Rehder).<br />
’Aureo-variegata’ (Weston, Fl. Angl. 46. 1775, as U. glabra var. aureo-variegata)<br />
= ’LUTEO-VARIEGATA’.
-AURESCENS (Uieck, Neuheiten-Utterten, Nat.-Arb. Goschen, Germany, ltSy4-y5,<br />
p. 12, as U. p<strong>in</strong>nato-ramosa f. aurescens). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g the leaves <strong>of</strong><br />
emergent shoots yellowish. Orig<strong>in</strong>ated <strong>in</strong> the National Arboretum, Zoschen, near<br />
Merseburg, Germany. U. pumila.<br />
‘AUSTPALIS’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1398. 1838, as U. montana var. australis<br />
Hort.). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g "rather small leaves and a more pendulous habit<br />
<strong>of</strong> growth than the species". U. glabra.<br />
’Bataviana’ (Simon-Louis, Metz, France, Cat. 1869, as U. campestris bataviana,<br />
without description) = ’BELGICA’.<br />
’Batav<strong>in</strong>a’ (Koch, Dendr. 2 ( 1 ) : 414. 1872, as U. batav<strong>in</strong>a) = ’BELGICA’.<br />
‘BEA SCHWARZ’ (J. C. Went <strong>in</strong> Ned. Staatscourant, 4 Nov. 1948, no. 214 [not<br />
seen] and <strong>in</strong> Meded. Comite Best. Bestr. Iepenz. 44: 6. 1949 [not seen];<br />
Krussmann <strong>in</strong> Parey’s Blumengartn. ed. 2. 1: 519. 1958, as a cv.). A selection<br />
raised by the elm disease committee <strong>in</strong> the Netherlands from French<br />
seed, about 1945, for its resistance to Dutch Elm Disease, issued <strong>in</strong> 1948, and<br />
said to be slightly hardier than ’Christ<strong>in</strong>e Buisman’. Earlier referred to as<br />
"Clone no. 62." U. X hollandica.<br />
’BEAVERLODGE’ (Rept. llth Annual Meet<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the West Canadian Society for<br />
Horticulture 1955 [not seen] ). Selected <strong>in</strong> 1925 as a seedl<strong>in</strong>g from the Experimental<br />
Station, Morden, Manitoba, for its hard<strong>in</strong>ess and vigor with an upright,<br />
moderately spread<strong>in</strong>g head. Introduced by the Experimental Farm, Research<br />
Branch, Canada Dept. <strong>of</strong> Agriculture, Beaverlodge,<br />
[ 50 ]<br />
<strong>in</strong> 1954. U. americana.<br />
‘BEEBE’S WEEPING’ (Meehan <strong>in</strong> Garden & Forest 2: 286. 1889, as "Beebe’s Weep<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Elm" and U. f ulva pendula). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g branches which are<br />
thick and cord-like but curve over as they grow, much as those <strong>in</strong> the Weep<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Willow. Propagated by graft<strong>in</strong>g from a tree grow<strong>in</strong>g wild near Galena, Ill<strong>in</strong>ois,<br />
collected by Mr. E. Beebe. U. americana.<br />
‘BELGICA’ (Weston, Fl. Angl. 46. 1775, as U. belgica, without description; Krussmann<br />
<strong>in</strong> Parey’s Blumengartn. ed. 2. 1: 519. 1958, as a cv.). As an epithet under<br />
the International Code <strong>of</strong> Botanical Nomenclature belgica is an obligate syn-<br />
onym <strong>of</strong> U. X hollandica but as the International Code <strong>of</strong> Nomenclature for<br />
Cultivated Plants is <strong>in</strong>dependent <strong>of</strong> the Botanical Code the name is here ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
as a cultivar for the clone widely grown and known as such <strong>in</strong> the<br />
Netherlands. U. X hollandica.<br />
’BERARDII’ (Simon-Louis, Metz, France, Cat. 1869, p. 96. fig. 7. 1869, as U. Ber-<br />
ardii ; Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 539. 1962, as a cv.). Raised <strong>in</strong> the<br />
nursery <strong>of</strong> Messrs. Simon-Louis, near Metz, <strong>in</strong> 1863. A bushy tree with slender<br />
upright branches. Judg<strong>in</strong>g from dried speciments <strong>of</strong> this plant it is possibly a<br />
form <strong>of</strong> U. pumila.<br />
’BETULAEFOLIA’ (Loddiges, Hackney, London, Cat. 1836 [not seen]; Loudon, Arb.<br />
Frut. Brit. 3: 1376. 1838, as U. campestris var. betulaefolia). Described as
hav<strong>in</strong>g "leaves somewhat resembl<strong>in</strong>g those <strong>of</strong> the common birch," and aga<strong>in</strong> as<br />
"a tree <strong>of</strong> pyramidal habit with ascend<strong>in</strong>g branches and elliptic to ellipticoblong<br />
leaves 4-8 cm. long, narrowed toward the unequal base." Probably<br />
U. X vim<strong>in</strong>alis (that is U. procera var. vim<strong>in</strong>alis sensu Rehder) to which, accord<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to Dr. Melville, the tree grow<strong>in</strong>g under this name at Kew may be<br />
attributed.<br />
’Betul<strong>in</strong>oides’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. Nachtrag I, 1887, p. 28)<br />
= U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia ’BETULAEFOLIA’.<br />
’Betuloides’ (Kirchner <strong>in</strong> Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 553. 1864,<br />
suberosa betuloides Hort., name <strong>in</strong> synonymy) = ’BETULAEFOLIA’.<br />
51 ]<br />
as U.<br />
‘BILTII’ (Groenewegen en Zoon, de Bilt, Netherlands, Cat. 1921-22, as U. campestris<br />
Bilti [not seen] ). Selected by Bernard Groenewegen <strong>in</strong> his nursery at de<br />
Bilt, possibly from French seedl<strong>in</strong>gs. Said to have a compact, pyramidal crown,<br />
not unlike the Cornish Elm, with dark green, nearly round, and crowded<br />
leaves. Tips <strong>of</strong> young shoots with a purplish-bronze t<strong>in</strong>ge, contrast<strong>in</strong>g with the<br />
yellowish-green young leaves. U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’Biltil’ (Pierre Lombarts, Royal Nurseries, Zundert, Netherlands, Cat. 1959-60,<br />
p. 83). Error for ‘BILTII’. -<br />
’Bitchuiense’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 5. 253. 1949). Mistake for Viburnum<br />
bitchiuense.<br />
’Boulevard’ (Rosehill Gardens, Kansas, Missouri, Cat. Spr<strong>in</strong>g 1960 [not seen])<br />
= ’ROSEHILL’.<br />
’Brea’ (Keel<strong>in</strong>e-Wilcox Nursery, Brea, California, Cat. W<strong>in</strong>ter 1952 [not seen])<br />
= ’DRAKE’.<br />
’Broadleaf Hybrid’ (E. L. Kammerer <strong>in</strong> Bull. Pop. Inf. Morton Arb. 36 (5): 25.<br />
1961). Found <strong>in</strong> a nursery row <strong>in</strong> 1938 or 1939 at the Neosho Nurseries,<br />
Neosho, Missouri, who state that it is a bud sport <strong>of</strong> U. pumila and not a hybrid<br />
as the name suggests. = ’GREEN KING’.<br />
’Bubyriana’ (Litv<strong>in</strong>ov <strong>in</strong> Sched. Herb. Fl. Ross. 8: 23, no. 2444. t. 2. 1922, as<br />
U. densa var. Bubyriana). Described from a cultivated tree <strong>in</strong> Samarkand,<br />
Turkestan. Mentioned by Loz<strong>in</strong>a-Loz<strong>in</strong>skaia (<strong>in</strong> Sokolov, Trees & Shrubs <strong>in</strong><br />
the U.S.S.R. [<strong>in</strong> Russian] 2: 505. 1951) under U. densa, as a cultivated form,<br />
but by larmolenko (<strong>in</strong> Komarov, Fl. U.S.S.R. 5: 369. 1936)<br />
as a cultivated form<br />
closer to U. campestris umbraculifera than U. densa. Furthermore Litv<strong>in</strong>ov<br />
(<strong>in</strong> Sched. Herb. Fl. Ross. 6: 163, no. 1991. 1908) states that he believes the<br />
plant called "Narwan" <strong>in</strong> Persia, and which <strong>in</strong> 1922 he called var. bubyriana<br />
to be the same as the "Narband" <strong>of</strong> Trautvetter which is the latter’s var. umbraculifera.<br />
= ’UMBRACULIFERA’.<br />
’Buisman’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 6. 285. 1958, without description) = ’CHRIS-<br />
TINE BUISMAN’.
’Burejaecticum’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 5. 253. 1949). Mistake for Viburnum<br />
bure~aeticum.<br />
’Bush’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 5. 253. 1949, as U. glabra Bush, without description)<br />
= ’NANA’.<br />
’Buxifolia’ (Nicholson, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs 2: 135. 1896, as U. buxifolia<br />
Hort., <strong>in</strong> synonymy, without description) = ’MYRTIFOLIA’.<br />
’Camperdown’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 5. 253. 1949, as U. glabra Camperdown)<br />
= ‘CAMPERDOWNII’.<br />
‘CAMPERDOWNII’ (Rehder <strong>in</strong> Bailey, Cycl. Amer. Hort. (4): 1881. 1902,<br />
52<br />
as U.<br />
camperdownii Hort.; Kriissmann <strong>in</strong> Parey’s Blumengartn. ed. 2. 1: 519. 1958,<br />
branches and branch-<br />
as a cv. ) . The Camperdown Elm. Described as "hav<strong>in</strong>g<br />
lets pendulous, form<strong>in</strong>g a globose head, <strong>in</strong> marked contrast to the flat stifflook<strong>in</strong>g<br />
crown <strong>of</strong> var. pendula." Orig<strong>in</strong>ated at Camperdown House, near Dundee,<br />
Scotland, about 1850. A nothomorph <strong>of</strong> U. X vegeta (that is, U. X hollandica<br />
var. vegeta sensu Rehder) with close similarity to U. glabra.<br />
‘CEBENNENSIS’ (Audibert, Tonelle, France, Cat. Arb. 2, p. 53. 1831-32, as U.<br />
campestris var. cebennensis, without description; Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3:<br />
like that <strong>of</strong> U. montana<br />
vulgaris but it appears <strong>of</strong> much less vigorous growth." U. glabra.<br />
1398. 1838). The Cevennes Elm. "Its habit is spread<strong>in</strong>g<br />
’CHINKOTA’ (South Dakota Farm & Home Research 7: 14. 1955, but named previously<br />
by the South Dakota Farm Forestry Council). A l<strong>in</strong>e selected at South<br />
Dakota State Experiment Station from ’Harb<strong>in</strong> Stra<strong>in</strong>’ for its early ripen<strong>in</strong>g<br />
habit and tendency to rema<strong>in</strong> dormant until after severe spr<strong>in</strong>g frosts are passed;<br />
distributed by the Station as certified seed. Said by some to be the same as<br />
’Dropmore’. U. pumila.<br />
’CHRISTINE BUISMAN’ (Meded. Comite Best. Bestr. Iepenz. 26: 1. 1938 [not seen]<br />
and J. C. Went <strong>in</strong> Phytopath. Zeits. 11 (2): 188. 1938 [not seen]; Boom, Ned.<br />
Dendr. 1: 158. 1959, as a cv.). A selection made by Dr. Christ<strong>in</strong>e Buisman at<br />
the Phytopathology Laboratory "Willie Commel<strong>in</strong> Scholten," Baarn, Netherlands,<br />
from plants grown from seed collected <strong>in</strong> Madrid, Spa<strong>in</strong>, <strong>in</strong> 1928. Re-<br />
leased to growers after her death <strong>in</strong> 1937, and referred to <strong>in</strong> earlier reports as<br />
"no. 24." Resistant to Dutch elm disease. Attributed by Dr. Melville to U. X<br />
hollandica and by others to U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’Cicestria’ (W. A. & J. Mackie, Norwich, Cat. 1812, p. 59, as U. campestris var.<br />
cicestria, without description) = ’VEGETA’.<br />
‘CINEREA’ ( Andre Leroy Nurseries, Angers, France, Cat. 1856, p. 70, as U. c<strong>in</strong>erea,<br />
without description; Planchon <strong>in</strong> De Candolle, Prodr. 17: 160. 1873). Said to<br />
have branches which are "stunted and tortuous, the upper ascend<strong>in</strong>g, the lower<br />
more or less pendulous. Leaves crowded and similar to those <strong>of</strong> var. fastigiata<br />
from which var. c<strong>in</strong>erea appears to differ only <strong>in</strong> not be<strong>in</strong>g fastigate <strong>in</strong> habit."<br />
The tree <strong>of</strong> this cultivar at Kew is U. X hollandica.
’C<strong>in</strong>erea’ (Kirchner <strong>in</strong> Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 565. 1864, as U. c<strong>in</strong>erea<br />
Hort., name <strong>in</strong> synonymy) = ’NIGRA’.<br />
’Clemmeri’ (Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 235. 1877, as U. campestris var. Clemmeri,<br />
without description) = ’KLEMMER’.<br />
’Cochleata’ (C. de Vos, Handboek 204. 1887 [not seen]) = ’CUCULLATA’.<br />
’COLORANS’ (Kirchner <strong>in</strong> Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 559. 1864, as U. effusa<br />
var. colorans). Described as turn<strong>in</strong>g a beautiful scarlet red <strong>in</strong> the autumn, not<br />
golden. U. laevis.<br />
’COLUMNARIS’ ( Rehder <strong>in</strong> Jour. Arnold Arb. 3: 42. 1921, as a form). Described<br />
as a columnar form discovered by Mr. John Dunbar <strong>in</strong>side a garden wall at<br />
Conesus Lake, New York. U. americana.<br />
’COMMELIN’ (Bosbouwproefstation Baarn ex Boom, Ned. Dendr. 1: 158. 1959,<br />
as a cv.). This cultivar has a fair resistance to Dutch Elm Disease and was<br />
selected for this at the Phytopathology Laboratory "Willie Commel<strong>in</strong> Scholten"<br />
at Baarn, Netherlands. Derived from a cross between U. X vegeta and a<br />
selected French seedl<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia, made <strong>in</strong> 1940, at the Laboratory<br />
<strong>of</strong> Genetics, Wagen<strong>in</strong>gen; it differs from ’Vegeta’ <strong>in</strong> the narrower habit, the<br />
darker gray branches, the duller and brown branchlets, the smaller leaves, the<br />
smaller number <strong>of</strong> ve<strong>in</strong>s ( 9-12 ) and the pilose undersides <strong>of</strong> the leaves. U. X<br />
vegeta (that is, U. X hollandica var. vegeta sensu Rehder). ..,..<br />
‘CoNCnvAEFOLIA’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1378. 1838, as U. campestris var.<br />
concavae f olia Hort. ) .<br />
Described as resembl<strong>in</strong>g var. cucullata. U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’COOLSHADE’ (Sarcoxie Nurseries, Sarcoxie, Missouri, Cat. 1951, p. 6). Orig<strong>in</strong>ated<br />
<strong>in</strong> 1946 from the parent tree grow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the Sarcoxie Nurseries, and said to be<br />
<strong>of</strong> rapid, stocky growth with a compact top resistant to breakage under ice and<br />
snow and foliage a much darker green. Said to be a hybrid <strong>of</strong> U. pumila X<br />
rubra.<br />
’Cornubiensis’ ([Weston] Boom, Ned. Dendr. 1: 158. 1959, as a cv.). The Cornish<br />
Elm. More correctly placed <strong>in</strong> the botanical rank <strong>of</strong> variety: U. angustifolia<br />
(Weston) Weston var. cornubiensis (Weston) Melville ( U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia Gled.<br />
var. cornubiensis ( Weston ) Rehder).<br />
’CORNUBIENSIS PARVIFOLIA’ (Boulger <strong>in</strong> Gard. Chron. II. 12: 298. 1879, as U.<br />
campestris cornubiensis parvifolia, without description). Probably U. angustifolia.<br />
‘CORNUTA’ (David <strong>in</strong> Revue Hort. II. 4: 102. 1845, as U. campestris cornuta;<br />
Boom, Ned. Dendr. 1: 157. 1959, as a cv. ) .<br />
projections or lobes on the shoulders or apex. U. glabra.<br />
53<br />
The large leaves have two long<br />
‘CORYLIFOLIA’ (Host, Fl. Austr. 1: 329. 1827, as U. corylifolia).<br />
Described as<br />
hav<strong>in</strong>g broad-ovate, scabrid leaves, doubly toothed with broad, obtuse teeth.
Later as hav<strong>in</strong>g "leaves 8 X 6 cm., rather crowded, usually slightly rough and<br />
similar to scabra [glabra] but accord<strong>in</strong>g to the texture, position and fruits,<br />
belong<strong>in</strong>g to glabra [carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia]." U. glabra.<br />
’Corylifolia’ (Zapelowicz, Conspec. Fl. Galic. 2: 98. 1908,<br />
corylifolia, not U. corylifolia Host) = ’CORNUTA’.<br />
54 ]<br />
as U. montana var.<br />
’CORYLIFOLIA PURPUREA’ (Pynaert <strong>in</strong> Tijdschr. Boomteelt. [Bull. Arb. Flor. Cult.<br />
Potag.] 1879: 57. 1879, as U. campestris corylifolia purpurea).<br />
hav<strong>in</strong>g large purplish leaves resembl<strong>in</strong>g those <strong>of</strong> a Hazel <strong>in</strong> shape.<br />
Described as<br />
Raised from<br />
seed <strong>of</strong> ’Purpurea’. U. glabra.<br />
‘CRETENSIS’ (Nicholson, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs 2: 135. 1896, as U.<br />
campestris var. cretensis Hort., without description).<br />
’CRISPA’ (Willdenow, Enum. PI. Hort. Berol. 295. 1809, as U. crispa; Kriissmann,<br />
Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 536. 1962, as a cv.). The Fernleaf Elm. Leaves narrow,<br />
<strong>in</strong>cisely serrate with twisted and <strong>in</strong>curved teeth; <strong>of</strong> slow growth. U. glabra.<br />
’Crispa Aria’ ( Maxwell ex Jour. Roy. Hort. Soc. 18: 91. 1895, as U. montana var.<br />
crispa aria, without description). Error for ’CRISPA AUREA’?<br />
’CRISPA AUREA’ (Schelle <strong>in</strong> Beissner et al., Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 86. 1903, as<br />
U. montana crispa aurea Hort., without description; Schneider, Illus. Handb.<br />
Laubh. 1: 217. 1904). Described as "like f. crispa but with more or less golden<br />
leaves." U. glabra.<br />
’Crispa Incisa’ (Koch, Dendr. 2 ( 1 ) : 416. 1872, as U. crispa <strong>in</strong>cisa, name <strong>in</strong><br />
synonymy) = ’EXONIENSIS’.<br />
’CUCULLATA’ (Loddiges, Hackney, England, Cat. 1823, p. 35, as U. campestris<br />
cucullata, without description; Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1378. 1838, as<br />
U. campestris var. cucullata). "Has the leaves curiously curved, someth<strong>in</strong>g like<br />
a hood." U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’Cucullata Folia Variegata’ (C. de Vos, Woordenbook 135. 1867, as U. americana<br />
cucullata = fol. var. ) ’CUCULLATA VARIEGATA’.<br />
’CUCULLATA VARIEGATA’ ( Schelle <strong>in</strong> Beissner et al., Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 82.<br />
1903, as U. campestris concavifolia cucullata variegata Hort., without description).<br />
U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’Dampier’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 6. 1285. 1958, as U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia Dampier,<br />
without description) = ’DAMPIERI’.<br />
’DAMPIERI’ (Wesmael <strong>in</strong> Bull. Fed. Soc. Hort. Belg. 1862: 389. 1863,<br />
as U. campestris<br />
var. nuda subvar. fastigiata Dampieri Hort. Vilv.; Boom, Ned. Dendr.<br />
1: 158. 1959, as as cv.). Described as a narrow pyramidal tree, leaves crowded<br />
on short branchlets, broadly ovate, deeply and doubly toothed with crenately<br />
serrate teeth. Specimens <strong>in</strong> the Kew herbarium from cultivation have been<br />
determ<strong>in</strong>ed by Dr. Melville as U. X hollandica.
Dampieri Aurea’ (Wrede ex Jager & Beissner, Ziergeh.<br />
1884, as U. montana var. Dampieri aurea) = ’WREDEI’.<br />
55 ]<br />
Gart. & Park. ed. 2. 403.<br />
’DAUVESSEI’ (Nicholson <strong>in</strong> Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs 2: 139. 1896,<br />
as U.<br />
montana var. Dauvessei Hort., without description; Henry <strong>in</strong> Elwes & Henry,<br />
Trees Gr. Brit. Irel. 7: 1874. 1913; Kriissmann <strong>in</strong> Parey’s Blumengartn. ed. 2. 1:<br />
519. 1958, as a cv.). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g branches ascend<strong>in</strong>g, form<strong>in</strong>g a broad<br />
pyramidal tree. Leaves smaller and th<strong>in</strong>ner <strong>in</strong> texture than U. glabra, rarely<br />
exceed<strong>in</strong>g 4 <strong>in</strong>. long and 2/ <strong>in</strong>. wide, with petioles up to / <strong>in</strong>. long. U. X<br />
hollandica.<br />
’Dauvessi’ ( Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 235. 1877, as U. campestris<br />
Hort., without description) = ’DAUVESSEI’. _<br />
var. Dauvessi<br />
’Decumbens’ (Masters, Hort. Duroverni 67. 1831, as var. decumbens, without description,<br />
name <strong>in</strong> synonymy) = ‘HORIZONTALIS’.<br />
’De Dumont’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 6. 286. 1958, without description) =<br />
’DUMONT’.<br />
’DENSA’ (Litv<strong>in</strong>ov <strong>in</strong> Sched. Herb. Fl. Ross. 6: 163, no. 1991. t.1, 2. 1908, as U.<br />
densa). Ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed at specific rank by Loz<strong>in</strong>a-Loz<strong>in</strong>skaia (<strong>in</strong> Sokolov, Trees<br />
& Shrubs <strong>in</strong> the U.S.S.R. [<strong>in</strong> Russian] 2: 504. 1951) and by Mulkidjanian (<strong>in</strong><br />
Takhtajan, Fl. Armenia [<strong>in</strong> Russian] 4: 341. 1962) but stated to be unknown<br />
<strong>in</strong> the wild and ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> cultivation solely by budd<strong>in</strong>g on U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
In Armenia there are said to be two forms; the typical one with a few ma<strong>in</strong><br />
branches which are much branched <strong>in</strong> the upper part, with dense foliage <strong>of</strong><br />
thicker and darker leaves and almost sterile. The other much branched from<br />
the place <strong>of</strong> the graft but on the whole with a less dense more uniformly<br />
developed crown, the leaves less leathery and lighter and with fruit produced<br />
almost every year. Probably the former is Litv<strong>in</strong>ov’s U. densa var. bubyriana,<br />
despite the use <strong>of</strong> the word "typical" above. <strong>Ulmus</strong> densa was treated by<br />
Rehder (Bibl. Cult. Trees & Shrubs, 142. 1949) as a synonym <strong>of</strong> U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia<br />
var. umbraculifera, which var. bubyriana almost certa<strong>in</strong>ly is.<br />
’DICKSONII’ (Dickson ex Jour. Roy. Hort. Soc. 32: cxix. 1907, without description;<br />
Dickson’s Nurseries, Chester, England, Cat. 667, p. 31. 1909-10, as U. campestris<br />
cornubiensis Dicksonii ) . Described as be<strong>in</strong>g free and upright <strong>in</strong> growth,<br />
the foliage a clear glow<strong>in</strong>g gold, very constant, and reta<strong>in</strong>ed till late <strong>in</strong> the<br />
autumn. Orig<strong>in</strong>ated <strong>in</strong> Dickson’s Nurseries about 1900. U. X sarniensis (that<br />
is U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia var. sarniensis sensu Rehder ) .<br />
‘DrJxwEL’ (Van ’t Weste<strong>in</strong>de, Holland, Cat. 27, p. 28. 1957-58 [not seen]). Said<br />
to resemble ’Schuurhoek’ closely, have slightly larger and lighter leaves, and<br />
be more difficult to propagate from cutt<strong>in</strong>gs. Orig<strong>in</strong>al<br />
tree free from frost-<br />
cracks. U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’DRAKE’ (Monrovia Nursery, Azusa, California, Cat. 1952-53 [1 July 1952, not<br />
seen]). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g "rich evergreen foliage on sweep<strong>in</strong>g branches<br />
which grow more upright than the regular evergreen elm." U. parvifolia.
‘DOVAEI’ (Andre Leroy Nurseries, Angers, France, Cat. 1868, p. 82, as U. Dovaei).<br />
Described as a vigorous tree, well shaped, proper for avenues. U. glabra.<br />
‘Dowei’ ( Baudriller, Angers, France, Cat. 43, p. 117. 1880, as U. Dowei, without<br />
description) = ’DOVAEI’.<br />
’DROPMORE’ (1953 Report <strong>of</strong> the Great Pla<strong>in</strong>s Section <strong>of</strong> the Amer. Soc. for Horti-<br />
cultural Science [not seen]). A name proposed to replace ’Harb<strong>in</strong> Stra<strong>in</strong>’,<br />
’Harb<strong>in</strong>’, ’Manchu’, and ’Ch<strong>in</strong>kota’, on the assumption that these are all the same<br />
l<strong>in</strong>e, and to remove the confusion <strong>of</strong> several names for the same cultivar.<br />
U. pumila.<br />
‘DUMONT’ (Anon. <strong>in</strong> Rev. Hort. Belg. 18: 12. 1892, as l’Orme Dumont). Described<br />
as a very vigorous, hav<strong>in</strong>g straight trunk and a narrow, regularly formed, pyramidal<br />
crown. The leaves be<strong>in</strong>g somewhat smaller than <strong>in</strong> ’Belgica’. Discovered<br />
by a gardener on the estate <strong>of</strong> M. Dumont at Toumay <strong>in</strong> Belgium about 1865.<br />
U. X hollandica.<br />
’Dumontii’ (Mottet <strong>in</strong> Nicholson & Mottet, Dict. Prat. Hort. 5: 383. 1898, as<br />
U. campestris var. Dumontii; Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 537. 1962, as a<br />
cV. ) _ ’DUMONT’.<br />
’Elegans Folia Argenteo-variegata’ (Goeschke, Bunte Geholze 46. 1900, as<br />
U. campestris elegans foliis argenteo variegatis Hort. ) . Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g<br />
beautiful gray-green foliage with a broad silver marg<strong>in</strong>, and the tip <strong>of</strong> the shoot<br />
p<strong>in</strong>k. = ’TRICOLOR’.<br />
’Elegantissima’ (Kirchner <strong>in</strong> Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 556. 1864, as<br />
U. suberosa elegantissima Hort., <strong>in</strong> synonymy, not U. X elegantissima Horwood,<br />
1933) = U. X ’Uim<strong>in</strong>4llS ‘VARIEGATA’.<br />
’Elegantissima Variegata’ (Miller, Gard. Dict. ed. 6. <strong>Ulmus</strong> no. 6. 1752, as U.<br />
m<strong>in</strong>or, folio angusto scabro, elegantissime variegato ) .<br />
beautiful striped leaves. = U. procera ’ARGENTEO-VARIEGATA’?<br />
56 6<br />
Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g<br />
’Eleganto-variegata’ (Miller, Gard. Diet. ed. 6. <strong>Ulmus</strong> no. 7. 1752, as U. folio<br />
= glabro, eleganter variegato) U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia ‘VARIEGATA’.<br />
’ELEGANTO-VARIEGATA’ (Miller, Gard. Dict. ed. 6. <strong>Ulmus</strong> no. 9. 1752, as U.<br />
major Hollandica, angustis dr magis acum<strong>in</strong>atis samarris, folio latissimo scabro,<br />
eleganter variegato ) . Described as the Dutch Elm with striped leaves. U. X<br />
hollandica.<br />
‘ERECTA’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1396. 1838, as U. (campestris) suberosa<br />
var. erecta). "Has a tall narrow head, resembl<strong>in</strong>g the Cornish Elm; but differ<strong>in</strong>g<br />
from that tree <strong>in</strong> hav<strong>in</strong>g much broader leaves, and a corky bark." U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’Erubescens’ (Henry <strong>in</strong> Elwes & Henry, Trees Gr. Brit. Irel. 7: 1853. 1913, as<br />
U. pedunculata var. erubescens) _ ’RUBESCENS’.
‘ESCAILLARD’ (Andre Leroy Nurseries, Angers, France, Cat. 1849, p. 28, as<br />
<strong>Ulmus</strong> "elm" escaillard, without description; Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 235. 1877,<br />
as U. campestris var. Escaillardi, without description). U. glabra.<br />
’ETRUSCA’ (Nicholson, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs 2: 139. 1896,<br />
var. etrusca Hort., without description).<br />
57 7<br />
as U. montana<br />
The tree with this name at Kew has<br />
been identified by Dr. Melville as <strong>of</strong> hybrid orig<strong>in</strong>, U. glabra X plotii ( U. X<br />
elegantissima ) .<br />
’Evergreen’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 5. 253. 1949, as U. parvifolia Evergreen,<br />
without description) = ’SEMPERVIRENS’.<br />
’EXHIBITION’ (Patmore Nurseries, Brandon, Manitoba, Cat. 1952 [not seen]). A<br />
selection made by Patmore Nurseries from seed gathered near Brandon <strong>in</strong><br />
Manitoba and propagated clonally by graft<strong>in</strong>g. Upright <strong>in</strong> habit, it develops<br />
a narrow vase-shaped head with branches densely covered with small twigs.<br />
U. americana.<br />
’EXONIENSIS’ (Loddiges, Hackney, London, Cat. 1823, p. 35, as U. exoniensis,<br />
without description; Kriissmann <strong>in</strong> Parey’s Blumengartn. ed. 2. 1: 519. 1958,<br />
as a cv. ) . The Ford or Exeter Elm. Said to have strictly upright branches<br />
form<strong>in</strong>g a narrow columnar head, leaves small, broadly obovate, coarsely and<br />
deeply serrate, wr<strong>in</strong>kled above and <strong>of</strong>ten twisted. Raised at Exeter, England,<br />
by Mr. Ford. U. glabra.<br />
’Fastigiata’ (Audibert, Tonelle, France, Cat. 2, p. 53. 1831-32,<br />
fastigiata) =<br />
as U. suberosa<br />
U. angustifolia var. cornubiensis (U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia var. cornu-<br />
biensis).<br />
’Fastigiata’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1399. 1838, as U. montana var. fastigiata<br />
Hort.). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g "peculiarly twisted leaves and a very fastigiate<br />
habit <strong>of</strong> growth" = ‘EXONIENSIS’.<br />
’Fastigiata’ (Charles Fiore Nurseries, Prairie View, Ill<strong>in</strong>ois, Wholesale Cat. 1959-<br />
60, p. 33). Lat<strong>in</strong> name proposed after 1 Jan. 1959 and therefore illegitimate.<br />
= ‘FIOREI’.<br />
’Fastigiata Aurea’ (Nicholson, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs 2: 141. 1896, as<br />
U. montana var. fastigiata aurea Hort., without description) _ ’WREDEI’.<br />
’FASTIGIATA MACROPHYLLA’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. 1885, p. 82,<br />
as U. scabra fastigiata macrophylla Hort., without description; Hartwig, Ill.<br />
Geholzb. ed. 2. 393. 1892). Described as a beautiful pyramidal form with<br />
large leaves. U. glabra.<br />
’Fastigiata Plumosa’ (Schelle <strong>in</strong> Beissner et al.,<br />
Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 85.<br />
1903, as U. montana f. fastigiata plumosa Hort., without description).<br />
’EXONIENSIS’.<br />
’FASTIGIATA STRICTA’ (Bean, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs, ed. 3. 273. 1925, as<br />
U. montana var. fastigiata stricta Hort., without description). U. glabra.
‘FASTIGIATA VARIEGATA’ (Baudriller, Angers, France, Cat. 43, p. 117. 1880, as<br />
U. montana fastigiata variegata, without description). Referred to as the variegated,<br />
pyramidal, Exeter elm. U. glabra.<br />
‘FIOREI’ (Charles Fiore Nurseries, Prairie View, Ill<strong>in</strong>ois, Wholesale Cat. 1948).<br />
Described as a budded elm <strong>of</strong> narrow form with heavy foliage, dense growth,<br />
and smooth bark. U. americana.<br />
‘FIRMA’ (Schneider, Ill. Handb. Laubh. 1: 217. 1904, as U. scabra f. firma ) .<br />
Said to have leaves like the species but with a firmer texture. U. glabra.<br />
‘FJERRESTAD’ (Meded. Comite Best. Bestr. Iepenz. 13: 9. 1933, as U. hollandica<br />
"Fjerrestad" [not seen], without description).<br />
Sweden.<br />
[58 ]<br />
The clone was received from<br />
’FLAVA’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. Nachtrag I, 1887, p. 28, as U.<br />
scabra f. flava, without description). U. glabra.<br />
’FOLIA ALBO-PUNCTATA’ (C. de Vos, Woordenboek 135. 1867, as U. campestris<br />
fol. albo punctatis). With leaves dotted with white, not flecked. Probably<br />
U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
‘Folia Argentea’ (Baudriller, Angers, France, Cat. 43, p. 116. 1880,<br />
as U. cam-<br />
pestris foliis argenteis). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g leaves which are very beautifully<br />
and constantly variegated, and resist the bleach<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> = sunlight. Possibly U.<br />
carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia ’VARIEGATA’.<br />
’Folia Argenteo-marg<strong>in</strong>ata’ (Kirchner <strong>in</strong> Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 557.<br />
1864, as U. campestris var. foliis argenteo-marg<strong>in</strong>atis) . This variety was placed<br />
by de Vos ( Handboek 203. 1887) <strong>in</strong> synonymy with ’Tricolor’ but the leaves<br />
are generally described as bordered with white alone. = ’ARGENTEO-MAR-<br />
GINATA’.<br />
’Folia Argenteo-marmorata’ (Dippel, Handb. Laubh. 2: 25. 1892, as U. campestris<br />
f. fol. argenteo-marmoratis ) . Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g<br />
= ’MARMORATA’ ?<br />
leaves streaked with white.<br />
’Folia Argenteo-variegata’ (Kirchner <strong>in</strong> Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 554.<br />
1864, as U. campestris var. foliis argenteo-variegatis Hort.). Described as<br />
hav<strong>in</strong>g the leaves streaked with white. = U. procera ‘ARGENTEO-VARIEGATA’.<br />
’Folia Aurea’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1378. 1838, as U. campestris var.<br />
foliis aureis Hort. ) .<br />
U. procera.<br />
Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g the leaves variegated with yellow.<br />
‘Folia Aurea’ (Huberty <strong>in</strong> Bull. Soc. Centr. For. Belg. 11: 427. 1904, as U.<br />
campestris foliis aureis) = ’LOUIS vAN HOUTTE’.<br />
‘FOLIA AUREA VARIEGATA’ ( Jager, Ziergh. Gart. & Park. 548. 1865, as U. americana<br />
var. fol. aur. varieg. ) . Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g leaves variegated with yellow.<br />
U. americana.
’Folia Aureo-variegata’ (Baudriller, Angers, France, Cat. 43, p. 116. 1880, as<br />
U. campestris lati f olia foliis aureo-variegatis) = ’LATIFOLIA AUREO-VARIEGATA’.<br />
’Folia Flavescens’ (Miller, Gard. Diet. ed. 6. <strong>Ulmus</strong> no. 8. 1752, as U. m<strong>in</strong>or,<br />
foliis flavescentibus). Described as the yellow-leaved Elm. = ‘Loms vnrr<br />
Houz-rE’?<br />
’Folia Maculata’ (Loddiges, Hackney, London, Cat. 1823, p. 35, as U. campestris<br />
fol. maculatis, without description) = U. procera ‘ARGENTEO-VARIEGATA’?<br />
’Folia Marg<strong>in</strong>ata’ (Wesmael <strong>in</strong> Bull. Fed. Soc. Hort. Belg. 1862: 389. 1863, as<br />
U. campestris var. nuda subvar. foliis marg<strong>in</strong>atis) = ’ARGENTEO-MARGINATA’.<br />
’Folia Picturata’ (Dippel, Handb. Laubh. 2: 25. 1892, as U. campestris f. f ol.<br />
picturatis). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g the leaves spotted with white. = ’PICTURATA’.<br />
’Folia Punctata’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. 1885, p. 82,<br />
vim<strong>in</strong>alis fol. punctatis, name <strong>in</strong> synonymy) = ‘PULVERULENTA’.<br />
[<br />
59<br />
as U. scabra<br />
’Folia Purpurea’ (Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 235. 1877, as U. campestris var. foliis<br />
purpureis, without = description) U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia ( ? ) ‘PuaPUx~A’.<br />
’FOLIA RHOMBOIDEA’ (Morren <strong>in</strong> Jour. Agric. Prat. Belg. 4: 509, 511. 1851, as<br />
U. campestris lati f olia, foliis rhomboideis ) . Said to be grow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the Pitteurs<br />
estate at St. Trond, Belgium and to be like foliis rotundatis ( ‘Pitteurs’ ) but<br />
dist<strong>in</strong>guished by the rhomboid shape <strong>of</strong> the leaf. U. X hollandica.<br />
’Folia Rotundata’ (Morren <strong>in</strong> Jour. Agric. Prat. Belg. 4: 509, 511. 1851, as<br />
U. campestris lati f olia, foliis rotundatis) = ‘PI~URS’.<br />
’FOLIA RUBRA’ (Louis de Smet, Ghent, Belgium, Cat. 10, p. 59. 1877, as U.<br />
small leaves with a reddish<br />
campestris foliis rubris). Later described as hav<strong>in</strong>g<br />
green t<strong>in</strong>ge. Probably U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’Folia Variegata’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 4: 2587. 1838, as U. americana var.<br />
foliis variegatis Hort., without description) _ ’FOLIA AUREA VARIEGATA’.<br />
‘FOLIA VARIEGATA’ (Hartwig, Ill. Geholzb. ed. 2. 392. 1892, as U. pedunculata<br />
var. foliis variegatis Hort. ) . Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g leaves beautifully marked<br />
with marbled and streaked variegations.<br />
U. laevis.<br />
’Folia Variegata’ (Loddiges, Hackney, London, Cat. 1820, p. 39, as U. campestris<br />
f ol. var., without description; Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1376. 1838).<br />
Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g leaves striped with white. = ’ARGENTEO-VARIEGATA’.<br />
’Folia Variegata’ (Loddiges, Hackney, London, Cat. 1823, p. 35, as U. campestris<br />
f ol. variegatis, without description; Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1395. 1838, as<br />
U. ( campestris ) suberosa var. foliis variegatis ) . Described as be<strong>in</strong>g exactly like<br />
U. suberosa except <strong>in</strong> its variegation. = U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia ‘VAR~GATA’.<br />
’Folia Variegata’ (Loddiges, Hackney, London, Cat. 1823, p. 35, as U. major fol.<br />
varie~atis, without description) _ ‘ELEGANTO-VARIEGATA’.
’Folia Variegata’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. 1885, p. 82,<br />
’VIMINALIS MARGINATA’.<br />
vim<strong>in</strong>alis fol. variegatis, name <strong>in</strong> synonymy) =<br />
[<br />
60 0<br />
as U. scabra<br />
’Folia Variegata’ (C. de Vos, Handboek, 1887, as U. plumosa foliis variegatis<br />
= [not seen] ) ’FASTIGIATA VARIEGATA’.<br />
‘FOLIA VARIEGATA PENDULA’ (C. de Vos, Woordenboek 137. 1867,<br />
as U. suberosa<br />
fol. var. pendula). Described as a weak grow<strong>in</strong>g tree, <strong>of</strong> unsatisfactory duration<br />
but otherwise beautiful. Possibly U. X hollandica.<br />
’Fordii’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1399. 1839, as U. Fordii Hort., name <strong>in</strong><br />
synonymy) = ’EXONIENSIS’.<br />
’FULVA’ (Meded. Comite Best. Bestr. Iepenz. 10: 9. 1932, as U. hollandica var.<br />
fulva Hort., without description [not seen]). Received from Hesse’s Nurseries,<br />
Weener, Germany. U. X hollandica.<br />
fungosa (Aiton, Hort. Kew. 1: 319. 1789, as U. campestris var. fungosa). See<br />
under suberosa.<br />
’GAUJARDII’ (Silva Tarouca, Unsere Freil.-Laubgeh. 366. 1913, as U. Gaujardii,<br />
without description). U. X hollandica.<br />
’Gigantea’ (Kirchner <strong>in</strong> Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 564. 1864, as U.<br />
montana var. gigantea Hort.) = U. X hollandica ‘MAJOR’.<br />
’Glabra’ (Walpers, Ann. Bot. Syst. 3: 424. 1852, as a var.) = U. americana<br />
’PENDULA’.<br />
‘GLOSOSA’ ( Spath, Berl<strong>in</strong>, Germany. Cat. 89, p. 57. 1892-1893, as U. campestris<br />
globosa Behnsch). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g an un<strong>in</strong>terrupted, very dense, strongly<br />
branched, globose crown with firm, coriaceous, sh<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g leaves; said to be quite<br />
different from ’Umbraculifera’. Probably U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’Gracilis’ (Kirchner <strong>in</strong> Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 551. 1864, as U. gracilis<br />
Hort., name <strong>in</strong> synonymy) = ’VIMINALIS’.<br />
’Gracilis’ ( Krussmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 534. 1962, as a cv.) = ’UMBRACULI-<br />
FERA GRACILIS’.<br />
’Gracilis Aurea’ (Schelle, <strong>in</strong> Beissner et al., Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 86. 1903, as<br />
U. montana vim<strong>in</strong>alis gracilis aurea Hort., without description) = ’PULVERU-<br />
LENTA’.<br />
’Gracilis Monstrosa’ (Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 235. 1877, as U. campestris var.<br />
gracilis monstrosa, without description) =<br />
PENDULA’.<br />
U. X sarniensis ’MICROPHYLLA<br />
’Grandidentata’ (Dumortier, Fl. Belg. 25. 1827, as U. corylacea var. grandidentata<br />
) _ ’CORNUTA’.<br />
’GREEN KING’ (Henry Field Seed & Nursery Co., Shenandoah, Iowa, Spr<strong>in</strong>g Cat.
1960, as a registered trade mark, ®) . Stated to be <strong>of</strong> hybrid orig<strong>in</strong>, and first<br />
distributed as Field’s new hybrid elm, but see under ’Broadleaf Hybrid’.<br />
Described as <strong>of</strong> particularly rapid growth.<br />
’HAMBURG’ (Interstate Nurseries, Hamburg, Iowa, Cat. Spr<strong>in</strong>g 1948, p. 34, as<br />
Hamburg Elm). Said to be a hybrid <strong>of</strong> U. americana and U. pumila. Described<br />
as a hardy, very rapid grower and stronger <strong>in</strong> branch<strong>in</strong>g than U. pumila.<br />
Orig<strong>in</strong>ated <strong>in</strong> the Plumfield Nurseries, Fremont, Nebraska, <strong>in</strong> a bed <strong>of</strong> seedl<strong>in</strong>gs<br />
raised from seed <strong>of</strong> U. pumila from Tekamah, Nebraska, and selected by Mr.<br />
Lloyd M<strong>of</strong>fet, about 1932. Has also been sold as the "Hybrid Ch<strong>in</strong>ese Elm."<br />
’Hamburg Hybrid’ (Interstate Nurseries, Hamburg, Iowa, Cat. Spr<strong>in</strong>g, 1949, p.<br />
34, as Hamburg Hybrid Elm) = ’HAMBURG’.<br />
’Harb<strong>in</strong>’ (Sk<strong>in</strong>ner’s Nursery Ltd., Manitoba, Cat. 1954, p. 20) = ’DROP MORE’.<br />
’Harb<strong>in</strong> Stra<strong>in</strong>’ (Sk<strong>in</strong>ner’s Nursery Ltd., Manitoba, Cat. 1951, p. 23). A hardy<br />
l<strong>in</strong>e raised by Dr. F. L. Sk<strong>in</strong>ner from seed collected by Mr. Ptits<strong>in</strong> from near<br />
Harb<strong>in</strong>, Manchuria, quite hardy <strong>in</strong> Manitoba and described as fast grow<strong>in</strong>g,<br />
with small neat foliage. = ’DROPMORE’.<br />
‘HAARLEMENSIS’ (Spr<strong>in</strong>ger <strong>in</strong> Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. 21: 366. 1912, as<br />
U. campestris haarlemensis). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g a not very rapid growth,<br />
form<strong>in</strong>g an unbroken, broad pyramidal crown; the leaves glossy dark green and<br />
rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g on the tree for two or three weeks longer <strong>in</strong> the autumn. It was<br />
selected from amongst seedl<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> U. X hollandica. U. X hollandica.<br />
’HERTFORDENSis ANGUSTIFOLIA’ (Boulger <strong>in</strong> Gard. Chron. II. 12: 298. 1879, as<br />
U. campestris hertfordensis angustifolia ?, without description; Loudon, Arb.<br />
Frut. Brit. 3: 1396. 1838, as U. (campestris) suberosa var., "the narrow-leaved<br />
Hertfordshire Elm"). Probably U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
‘HERTFORDENSIS LATIFOLIA’ (Boulger <strong>in</strong> Gard. Chron. II. 12: 298. 1879,<br />
I<br />
61 1<br />
as U.<br />
campestris hertfordensis latifolia?; Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1396. 1838, as<br />
U. (campestris) suberosa var., "the broad-leaved Hertfordshire Elm"). Probably<br />
U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’HILLIERI’ (Hillier & Sons, W<strong>in</strong>chester, England, Cat. 38T, p. 52. 1928, as U.<br />
hillieri Hort.). Described as a very graceful, slow grow<strong>in</strong>g, small, weep<strong>in</strong>g tree<br />
with small leaves and slender branches which turn crimson <strong>in</strong> the autumn.<br />
U. X hollandica.<br />
’Hoersholm’ (Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 534. 1962, as a cv. ) _ ’HoER-<br />
SHOLMIENSIS’.<br />
‘Hoersholmi’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 6. 285. 1958, without description) =<br />
’HOERSHOLMIENSIS’.<br />
‘HoERSHOLMIENSIS’ ( Spath, Berl<strong>in</strong>, Germany, Cat. 242, p. 69. 1928-29). A tree<br />
with upright habit and quick growth through many years, leaves clear green,
lanceolate or narrowly obovate, acum<strong>in</strong>ate, base cuneate. Said to have orig<strong>in</strong>ated<br />
<strong>in</strong> the H~rsholm Planteskole between Copenhagen and Hels<strong>in</strong>g¢r, Denmark,<br />
probably about 1885, from seed <strong>of</strong> unknown orig<strong>in</strong>. U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’Hoersholmensis’ (Meded. Comite Best. Bestr. Iepenz. 13: 10. 1933 [not seen])<br />
= ’HOERSHOLMIENSIS’.<br />
‘HOLGERI’ (Holger Jensen ex Spath-Buch 1720-1920, 230. 1921). Described as<br />
<strong>of</strong> very strong growth, straight and sturdy with beautiful dark green leaves.<br />
Orig<strong>in</strong>ated <strong>in</strong> Sweden. U. glabra.<br />
’HOLMSTRUPII’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 6. 286. 1958, without description).<br />
Selected from amongst seedl<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> ’Hoersholmiensis’ <strong>in</strong> Asger M. Jensen’s<br />
Nursery, Holmstrup, Denmark about 1930, because <strong>of</strong> its strong quick-grow<strong>in</strong>g,<br />
upright stem and branches, bear<strong>in</strong>g small leaves and mak<strong>in</strong>g it suitable for<br />
plant<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> avenues. U. carp<strong>in</strong>i f olia. ,<br />
’HORIZONTALIS’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1398. 1838, as U. horizontalis Hort.,<br />
name <strong>in</strong> synonymy). Branches horizontally spread<strong>in</strong>g and, when grafted,<br />
form<strong>in</strong>g a low flat top with pendulous branches. Orig<strong>in</strong>ated early<br />
62<br />
<strong>in</strong> the 19th<br />
century as a seedl<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a nursery at Perth, Scotland. A tree <strong>of</strong> this cultivar was<br />
selfed by Melville at Kew (personal communication); it segregated for the<br />
pendulous habit but rema<strong>in</strong>ed true to species. U. glabra.<br />
’Horsholmii’ (Melville <strong>in</strong> Jour. L<strong>in</strong>n. Soc. Lond. Bot. 53: 88, 90. 1946,<br />
horsholmii Hort. ) _ ’HOERSHOLMIENSIS’.<br />
as var.<br />
’Hunt<strong>in</strong>gdon’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 5. 253. 1949, as U. hollandica Hunt<strong>in</strong>gdon,<br />
without description) = ’VEGETA’.<br />
’Hunt<strong>in</strong>gdon Elm’ (Richens <strong>in</strong> Forestry 34: 63. 1961). Formally proposed by<br />
Richens as a cultivar name but known by this as a common name to many<br />
previous authors = ’VEGETA’.<br />
’Hunt<strong>in</strong>gdonensis’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. Nachtrag I, 1887, p.<br />
28 ) _ ’VEGETA’.<br />
’Hunt<strong>in</strong>gdonii’ (Rehder <strong>in</strong> Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. (6): 3411. 1917,<br />
Hunt<strong>in</strong>gdonii Hort., <strong>in</strong> synonymy, without description) _ ’VEGETA’.<br />
as U.<br />
‘HuNNysuNII’ (Moss, Cambr. Brit. Fl. 2: 90. 1914, as U. nitens var. hunnybuni<br />
Moss). Described as a taller tree than var. sowerbyi, with the lower branches<br />
spread<strong>in</strong>g at right angles, the upper less tortuous; leaves even more asymmetrical<br />
at the base, more acum<strong>in</strong>ate; and said to be <strong>of</strong>ten planted. U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’IMPROVED CooLSHAnE’ (Sarcoxie Nurseries, Sarcoxie, Missouri, U. S. Plant Pat.<br />
No. 1747, July 1958). Orig<strong>in</strong>ated at the Sarcoxie Nurseries. Said to be <strong>of</strong> rapid<br />
growth giv<strong>in</strong>g a quick shade without an unsightly whippy top, with a noncrotch<strong>in</strong>g<br />
central trunk and branches resistant to break<strong>in</strong>g. Said to be a hybrid<br />
<strong>of</strong> U. pumila X rubra.
’INCISA’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1406. 1838,<br />
as U. americana var. <strong>in</strong>cisa<br />
H.S.). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g "leaves somewhat more deeply serrated and rather<br />
now ext<strong>in</strong>ct. U. americana.<br />
smaller". Possibly<br />
‘INCISA’ (Wesmael <strong>in</strong> Bull. Fed. Soc. Hort. Belg. 1862: 389. 1863, as U. campestris<br />
var. nuda subvar. <strong>in</strong>cisa Hort. Vilv. ) . Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g the leaves irregularly<br />
s<strong>in</strong>uate-<strong>in</strong>cised with long po<strong>in</strong>ted teeth. Possibly U. X vim<strong>in</strong>alis (that is U.<br />
procera var. vim<strong>in</strong>alis sensu Rehder).<br />
‘INSULARIS’ (Nilsson <strong>in</strong> Lustgarden 30: 127. 1949, as f. <strong>in</strong>sularis ) . Described as<br />
hav<strong>in</strong>g the crown rounded elongate-ovoid, branches dense, suberect. U. glabra.<br />
’Intermedia’ (Kirchner <strong>in</strong> Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 567. 1864,<br />
<strong>in</strong>termedia Hort., name <strong>in</strong> synonymy) = ’CORNUTA’.<br />
63 ]<br />
as U.<br />
’Jersey’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 6. 286. 1958, as U. procera Jersey, without<br />
description) = ’SARNIENSIS’.<br />
’KANSAS HYBRID’ (Kansas Nursery Co., Sal<strong>in</strong>a, Kansas, Retail Cat. Spr<strong>in</strong>g 1961,<br />
p. 52). A selected seedl<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> U. pumila show<strong>in</strong>g hybrid characteristics, raised<br />
by the Kansas Nursery Co. <strong>in</strong> the late 1920’s and ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed by graft<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g an upright branch<strong>in</strong>g habit and dark green, sh<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g leaves<br />
as large as U. americana, but <strong>of</strong> fast growth and cold and drought resistant.<br />
‘KIMLEY’ (Sheridan Nurseries, Sheridan, Ontario, Cat. 1957, p. 47). From a<br />
large tree found near Oshawa, Ontario, <strong>of</strong> f<strong>in</strong>e pendulous habit. U. americana.<br />
’Klehm’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 5. 253. 1949, as U. americana Klehm) =<br />
’KLEHMII’.<br />
’KLEHMII’ (Naperville Nurseries, Naperville, Ill<strong>in</strong>ois, Cat. 270, p. 6. 1929).<br />
Described as be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> a shapely form. The orig<strong>in</strong>al grafts taken from a tree <strong>in</strong><br />
Arl<strong>in</strong>gton Heights, Ill<strong>in</strong>ois, by Mr. Charles Klehm; selected for its f<strong>in</strong>e vase-<br />
shaped appearance.<br />
U. americana.<br />
’Klemeri’ (Spath, Berl<strong>in</strong>, Germany, Cat. 104, p. 134. 1899-1900, as U. Klemeri)<br />
= ’KLEMMER’.<br />
’KLEMMER’ (Gillekens, Elem. Arb. Forest. 41. 1891, as l’orme champetre klemmer<br />
; Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 537. 1962, as a cv.). Said to be a rapid<br />
grow<strong>in</strong>g, tall tree with ascend<strong>in</strong>g branches form<strong>in</strong>g at first a narrow pyramidal<br />
head which widens later, with plenty <strong>of</strong> root-suckers and some epicormic shoots.<br />
Susceptible to frost cracks. The timber is reddish and strong but liable to warp.<br />
Possibly attributable to U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia, but probably U. X hollandica.<br />
’KLEMMER BLANC’ (Feneau <strong>in</strong> Bull. Soc. Centr. For. Belg. 9: 162. 1902). Said<br />
to be <strong>in</strong>termediate between ’Klemmer’ and ’Belgica’. The leaves are smaller<br />
than ’Klemmer’ and the trees have no root-suckers or frost cracks. The timber<br />
is white and s<strong>of</strong>ter than ’Klemmer’. U. X hollandica.<br />
’Klemmer Rouge’ (Feneau <strong>in</strong> Bull. Soc. Centr. For. Belg. 9: 162. 1902). =<br />
’KLEMMER’.
‘KOOPMANNII’ (Lauche ex Spath, Berl<strong>in</strong>, Germany, Cat. 62, p. 6. 101. 1885, as<br />
U. Koopmanni; Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 534. 1962, as a cv. ) . Described<br />
as a form resembl<strong>in</strong>g U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia var. umbraculi f era with small ovate<br />
leaves but with an ovoid head if grafted high, shrubby and stoloniferous if<br />
propagated by cutt<strong>in</strong>gs. U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’LACINIATA’ (Wesmael <strong>in</strong> Bull. Fed. Soc. Hort. Belg. 1862: 390. 1863, as U.<br />
campestris var. nuda subvar. microphylla lac<strong>in</strong>iata Hort. Vilv.). Described as<br />
hav<strong>in</strong>g lac<strong>in</strong>iate leaves 3 to 5 cm. long. U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’LAKE CITY’ (Wyman <strong>in</strong> Trees Magaz<strong>in</strong>e 3 (4): 13. 1940; 4 ( 1 ) : 17. 1941).<br />
Said to be upright <strong>in</strong> habit, wide at the top and narrow at the base. U.<br />
americana.<br />
’LANUGINOSA’ ( Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 236. 1877, as U. suberosa var. lanug<strong>in</strong>osa,<br />
without description). U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’LATIFOLIA’ (Audibert, Tonelle, France, Cat. 1817, p. 23, as U. campestris var.<br />
lati f olia ) . Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g broader leaves than the species which expand<br />
very early <strong>in</strong> the spr<strong>in</strong>g. Possibly the same as ’Belgica’<br />
by Gillekens ( ~lem. Arb. Forest. 38. 1891).<br />
64<br />
but also called ’Mal<strong>in</strong>es’<br />
’LATIFOLIA AUREA’ ( Schelle <strong>in</strong> Beissner et al., Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 84. 1903,<br />
as U. glabra var. latifolia aurea Hort. Croux, without description). U. glabra.<br />
’LATIFOLIA AUREO-VARIECATA’ (Neubert <strong>in</strong> Deutsch. Mag. Gart. Blumenk. 1871:<br />
Described as a beautiful<br />
343. 1871, as U. campestris latifolia aureo-variegata ) .<br />
new variety with colored ornamental leaves. U. glabra.<br />
’LATIFOLIA NIGRICANS’ (Pynaert <strong>in</strong> Tijdschr. Boomteelt. [Bull. Arb. Flor. Cult.<br />
Potag.] 1879: 58. 1879, as U. campestris latifolia nigricans). Described as<br />
and <strong>of</strong> a dark t<strong>in</strong>t. Raised from seed <strong>of</strong><br />
very vigorous, the leaves be<strong>in</strong>g large<br />
’Purpurea’. U. glabra.<br />
’Libero-rubra’ (Planchon <strong>in</strong> De Candolle, Prodr. 17: 160. 1873, as U. libererubro,<br />
without description) = ’RUBRA’<br />
‘LITTLEFORD’ ( Sherman Nursery, Charles City, Iowa, Wholesale Cat. Spr<strong>in</strong>g<br />
1957, p. 5). Described as upright branch<strong>in</strong>g, rather narrow vase-shaped,<br />
foliage larger and somewhat heavier than usual. Grafts taken from orig<strong>in</strong>al tree<br />
<strong>in</strong> H<strong>in</strong>sdale, Ill<strong>in</strong>ois, about 1915; first marketed 1927. U. americana.<br />
’Littlefordii’ ( Bailey & Bailey, Hortus Second, 746, 747. 1941, as a var.) =<br />
‘LITTLEFORD’.<br />
’Lobata’ (Waisbecker <strong>in</strong> Oesterr. Bot. Zeitschr. 49: 67. 1899, as U. montana f.<br />
lobata) = ’CORNUTA.<br />
’Lombartii’ (Floralia 41 (39): 615. 1920, as U. suberosa pendula Lombartii<br />
[not seen]) = ‘LOMBARTSII’.
’LOMBARTSII’ (Lombarts, Zundert, Netherlands, Cat. 1921-22, p.<br />
[<br />
65 5<br />
25 as U.<br />
suberosa pendula Lombartsi [not seen]). A graceful tree with pendulous<br />
branches covered with corky w<strong>in</strong>gs. As the tree ages the w<strong>in</strong>gs become less<br />
prom<strong>in</strong>ent. Orig<strong>in</strong>ated <strong>in</strong> the Lombarts Nurseries, Zundert, Netherlands, about<br />
1910. Possibly U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia or U. X hollandica.<br />
‘Loms VAN HouTTE’ (Deegen <strong>in</strong> Ill. Monatsch. Gartenb. 5: 103. 1886; Boom, Ned.<br />
Dendr. 1: 158. 1959, as a cv.). Said to have leaves entirely yellow, reta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
this color throughout the summer, and to have been cultivated <strong>in</strong> Belgium about<br />
1863. From specimens, this appears to be U. procera.<br />
’Ludwig van Houtte’ ( Spath-Buch 1720-1920, 229. 1921), error for ’Louis VAN<br />
HOUTTE’.<br />
’LUTEO-VARIEGATA’ (Weston, Bot. Univ. 1: 315. 1770, as U. glabra luteovarieg.<br />
) . Leaves variegated with yellow. U. glabra.<br />
’LUTESCENS’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. 1885, p. 81, as U. campestris<br />
lutescens; Boom, Ned. Dendr. 1: 157. 1959, as a cv. ) . Described at first as<br />
hav<strong>in</strong>g gold-bronze foliage and later as hav<strong>in</strong>g yellow leaves at least <strong>in</strong> the<br />
spr<strong>in</strong>g. U. glabra.<br />
’MACROPHYLLA’ ( Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 237. 1877, without description). Later<br />
described as hav<strong>in</strong>g the largest leaves and be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> very strong growth.<br />
U. glabra.<br />
‘Macrophylla’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. 1885, p. 82, as U. scabra<br />
macrophylla Hort., not U. campestris var. macrophylla Spach, 1841) = ‘PIT-<br />
TEURS’.<br />
’MACROPHYLLA AUREA’ (Bean, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs, ed. 3. 273. 1925,<br />
as U. montana var. macrophylla aurea, without description). U. X hollandica.<br />
‘Macrophylla Aurea’ ( Spath, Berl<strong>in</strong>, Germany, Cat. 116, p. 125. 1904-05, as<br />
U. americana macrophylla aurea). Described as a very vigorous grow<strong>in</strong>g form<br />
= with young shoots golden. U. X hollandica ’MACROPHYLLA AUREA’?<br />
’Macrophylla Fastigiata’ ( Nicholson, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs 2: 141. 1896,<br />
as U. montana var. macrophylla fastigiata Hort., without description) _<br />
’MAJOR’?<br />
’MACULATA’ (Audibert, Tonelle, France, Cat. 2, p. 53. 1831-32, as U. scabra<br />
maculata ) . Described as spotted. U. glabra.<br />
’MAJOR’ (Smith <strong>in</strong> Sowerby, English Botany 36: t. 2542. 1814, as U. major;<br />
Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 537. 1962, as a cv. ) . A nothomorph <strong>of</strong><br />
U. X hollandica widely planted <strong>in</strong> Brita<strong>in</strong>.<br />
’Major’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1398. 1838, as U. montana var. major<br />
Masters). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g an "upright and rapid growth with few branches,<br />
approach<strong>in</strong>g the habit <strong>of</strong> the Scotch elm but <strong>of</strong> a more taper<strong>in</strong>g form." =<br />
‘SUPERBA’.
’Mal<strong>in</strong>es’ ( Gillekens, ~lem. Arb. Forest. 38. 1891, as orme de Mal<strong>in</strong>es). Said<br />
to have orig<strong>in</strong>ated about 1750 <strong>in</strong> Mal<strong>in</strong>es, or district; widely planted <strong>in</strong> Belgium.<br />
= ‘LATIFOLIA’.<br />
‘MANCHil’ (Stewarts Nurseries, Sutherland, Saskatchewan, Cat. 1951 [not seen]).<br />
Mr. Ptits<strong>in</strong><br />
A hardy stra<strong>in</strong> raised by Mr. H. D. Stewart from seed collected by<br />
from near Harb<strong>in</strong>, Manchuria, and quite hardy <strong>in</strong> Saskachewan. U. pumila.<br />
’Marg<strong>in</strong>ata’ (Krussmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 539. 1962) = ’VIMINALIS MAR-<br />
GINATA’.<br />
‘MARIJNE’ (C. de Vos, Handboek 205. 1887,<br />
as a Dutch name for U. sativa<br />
[not seen]). Without description and possibly a corruption <strong>of</strong> the French<br />
’Mal<strong>in</strong>es’.<br />
’MARKHAM’ (Peattie, A Natural History<br />
66 ]<br />
<strong>of</strong> Trees <strong>of</strong> Eastern and Central North<br />
America 240. 1950). A clone taken from an outstand<strong>in</strong>g tree grow<strong>in</strong>g naturally<br />
at Avon, New York, which is now dead. As well as great size the orig<strong>in</strong>al tree<br />
apparently possessed an extreme pendulous branch<strong>in</strong>g habit. U. americana.<br />
’MARMORATA’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. 1885, p. 81, as U. campestris<br />
marmorata Hort.). Described as beautifully variegated with white. The<br />
orig<strong>in</strong>al tree <strong>in</strong> Destedter Park was said to have produced massive variegated<br />
suckers. Probably U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’MICROPHYLLA’ (Loddiges, Hackney, London, Cat. 1823, p. 35, as U. stricta<br />
microphylla, without description). The specimen <strong>of</strong> this cultivar <strong>in</strong> Herb.<br />
Nicholson at Kew has been identified by Dr. Melville as U. X hollandica<br />
with leaf shape approach<strong>in</strong>g U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’Microphylla Albo-dentata’ (Dippel, Hand. Laubh. 2: 25. 1892, as U. campestris<br />
f. microphylla albo-dentatis) = ’ALBO-DENTATA’.<br />
’Microphylla Folia Marg<strong>in</strong>ata’ (Hartwig, Ill. Geholzb. ed. 2. 391. 1892, as<br />
U. campestris var. microphylla foliis marg<strong>in</strong>atis Hort.). Described as the<br />
marg<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
small-leaved elm. = ’ARGENTEO-MARGINATA’?<br />
’Microphylla Pendula’ (Hartwig & Rumpler, Ill. Geholzb. 580. 1875, as U.<br />
campestris var. microphylla pendula Hort., <strong>in</strong> synonymy) = ’VIMINALIS’.<br />
’MICROPHYLLA PENDULA’ (Kirchner <strong>in</strong> Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 561.<br />
1864, as U. microphylla pendula Hort.). The tree grow<strong>in</strong>g under this name<br />
at Kew, is, accord<strong>in</strong>g to Dr. Melville, a nothomorph <strong>of</strong> U. X sarniensis (that<br />
is U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia f. sarniensis sensu Rehder).<br />
’MICROPHYLLA RUBRA’ (C. de Vos, Handboek 203. 1887, as U. campestris<br />
microphylla rubra, without description [not seen] ). Said to be slightly different<br />
from U. campestris microphylla purpurea.<br />
’MINNEAPOLIS PARK’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 6. 285. 1958, without description).<br />
A selection made by the M<strong>in</strong>neapolis Park Department as be<strong>in</strong>g particularly<br />
fitted for boulevard plant<strong>in</strong>gs. U. americana.
’M<strong>in</strong>neapolis Park Board’ (Sherman Nursery, Charles City, Iowa, Wholesale Cat.,<br />
Spr<strong>in</strong>g 1960) = ’MINNEAPOLIS PARK’.<br />
’MINOR’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1398. 1838, as U. montana var. m<strong>in</strong>or<br />
Masters). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g a "more branch<strong>in</strong>g and spread<strong>in</strong>g habit, <strong>of</strong><br />
lower growth, with more twiggy shoots and these more densely<br />
leaves." U. glabra.<br />
~<br />
67 7<br />
clothed with<br />
’MODIOLINA’ (Dumont de Courset, Bot. Cult. 3: 700. 1802, as U. campestris var.<br />
modiol<strong>in</strong>a). "L’orme tortillard." Described as a pyramidal form <strong>of</strong> medium<br />
height with small leaves and crowded branches and by later authors as hav<strong>in</strong>g<br />
twisted and crowded branches and gnarled<br />
name has been identified by Dr. Melville as U. X hollandica.<br />
stems. The Kew tree under this<br />
‘MOLINE’ (Plant Buyer’s Index, ed. 2. supplement, 1928). Orig<strong>in</strong>ated<br />
as a wild<br />
seedl<strong>in</strong>g transplanted to Mol<strong>in</strong>e, Ill<strong>in</strong>ois, <strong>in</strong> 1903 and propagated from 1916; a<br />
narrow tree, when fully grown rather open, the ma<strong>in</strong> trunk upright but the<br />
older branches eventually horizontal. U. americana.<br />
’Mol<strong>in</strong>ensis’ (Bailey & Bailey, Hortus Second 746. 1941, as var. mol<strong>in</strong>ensis) =<br />
’MOLINE’.<br />
’MONSTROSA’ ( Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 235. 1877, as U. campestris var. monstrosa,<br />
without description; Hartwig, Ill. Geholzb. ed. 2. 394. 1892, as U. scabra var.<br />
monstrosa Hort.; Krussmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 536. 1962, as a cv.). Described<br />
as a compact shrub; branchlets <strong>of</strong>ten fasciated, leaves 5-8 cm. long,<br />
partly pitcher shaped at the base and on a slender stalk to 2.5 cm. long. U.<br />
glabra.<br />
’Monument’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 5. 253. 1949, as U. procera Monument,<br />
without description) = ‘MONUMENTALIS’.<br />
‘MONUMENTALIS’ (Kirchner <strong>in</strong> Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 554. 1864, as<br />
U. campestris var. monumentalis R<strong>in</strong>z). Said to be a columnar tree, with a few<br />
upright ma<strong>in</strong> branches and numerous short twigs bear<strong>in</strong>g dense crowded dark<br />
green leaves which was propagated by R<strong>in</strong>z at Frankfurt from a sucker <strong>of</strong><br />
"U. suberosa." Possibly U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia but placed by some as a synonym <strong>of</strong><br />
’SARNIENSIS’.<br />
‘MORDEN’ (Patmore Nurseries, Brandon, Manitoba, Cat. 1948 [not seen]). Selected<br />
<strong>in</strong> 1939 by the Dom<strong>in</strong>ion Experimental Farm, Morden, Manitoba, as<br />
be<strong>in</strong>g able to withstand severe ice-storms without breakage; hardy, fast grow<strong>in</strong>g,<br />
large and strong, but rather coarse. U. americana.<br />
‘MUSCAVIENSIS’ (Schneider, Ill. Handb. Laubh. 1: 219. 1904, as U. dippeliana f.<br />
muscaviensis). Described as be<strong>in</strong>g larger than U. glabra vim<strong>in</strong>alis, leaves<br />
measur<strong>in</strong>g about 9 X 5 cm. U. X hollandica.<br />
’MYRTIFOLIA’ (Nicholson, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs 2: 135. 1896, as U.
campestris var. myrti f olia Hort., without description; Rehder <strong>in</strong> Jour. Arnold<br />
Arb. 20: 87. 1939; Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 540. 1962, as a cv.).<br />
Leaves ovate or rhombic-ovate to oblong-ovate, 2-3 (-5 ) cm. long, with<br />
nearly simple teeth, loosely pilose on both sides; fruit obovate, 12-15 mm. long.<br />
The specimen under this name <strong>in</strong> Herb. Nicholson at Kew has been identified<br />
by Dr. Melville as hav<strong>in</strong>g small-leaved, juvenile-type foliage and probably be<strong>in</strong>g<br />
U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia X or plotii U. X hollandica.<br />
’Myrtifolia Purpurea’ (Louis de Smet, Ghent, Belgium, Cat. 10, p. 59. 1877, as<br />
U. myrtifolia purpurea) = ‘PURPURASCENS’.<br />
’NANA’ (Loddiges, Hackney, London, Cat. 1836 [not seen] ; Loudon, Arb. Frut.<br />
Brit. 3: 1378, & 4: 2586. 1838, as U. campestris var. nana Hort.; Krussmann,<br />
Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 536. 1962, as a cv.). The Bush Elm. Described as a very<br />
dist<strong>in</strong>ct variety not grow<strong>in</strong>g above 2 feet <strong>in</strong> 10-12 years. Species uncerta<strong>in</strong>, the<br />
Kew bush is said by Dr. Melville to be U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia X glabra or possibly<br />
U. X hollandica.<br />
’NEMORALIS’ (Schelle <strong>in</strong> Beissner et al., Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 84. 1903, as<br />
U. campestris f. nemoralis Hort., without description ) . Possibly U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’NIGRA’ (Loddiges ex Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1398. 1838, as U. montana var.<br />
nigra). The Black Irish Elm. Said to have particularly deep green leaves.<br />
U. glabra.<br />
’NIGRESCENS’ (Pynaert <strong>in</strong> Tijdschr. Boomteelt. [Bull. Arb. Flor. Cult. Potag.]<br />
1879: 57. 1879, as U. campestris betulaefolia nigrescens ) . Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g<br />
leaves like a birch and <strong>of</strong> a darker more persistent color than ’Purpurea’. Probably<br />
U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia but said to have been raised from seed <strong>of</strong> ’Purpurea’.<br />
’Nigrescens’ (Schelle <strong>in</strong> Beissner et al., Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 87. 1903, as<br />
U. americana f. nigrescens Dieck, name only) = ’NIGRICANS’.<br />
‘NIGRICANS’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. 1885, p. 80). Selected from<br />
seedl<strong>in</strong>gs raised at the Zoschener Baumschule, dist<strong>in</strong>guished by the deep darkgreen<br />
color <strong>of</strong> the leaves. U. americana.<br />
’Nigricans’ (Bailey & Bailey, Hortus 625. 1930, as U. nigricans, name <strong>in</strong> synonymy)<br />
= ‘NIGRESCENS’.<br />
’OBLONGATA’ (Koch, Dendr. 2 (1) : 415. 1872, as U. oblongata Hort.). Described<br />
as hav<strong>in</strong>g a broad oblong leaf without noticeable apical teeth. U. glabra.<br />
’Ohioensis’ (Nicholson, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs 2: 141. 1896, as U.<br />
ohioensis Hort., <strong>in</strong> synonymy, without description) = ’ExoNIENSIS’.<br />
’Ontariensis’ (Koch, Dendr. 2 ( 1 ) : 416. 1872, as U. ontariensis, name <strong>in</strong> synonymy)<br />
= ’EXONIENSIS’.<br />
’ORNATA’ ( Carriere, Revue Hort. 1858: 554. 1858, as U. communis ornata ) .<br />
Described from Toulouse and characterized as hav<strong>in</strong>g leaves which are not<br />
[<br />
68 8
the k<strong>in</strong>dness<br />
<strong>of</strong> Mlle. Y. de Ferre it is understood that two <strong>in</strong>dividual trees still exist <strong>in</strong> the<br />
orig<strong>in</strong>al locality, still show resistance to <strong>in</strong>sect attack, and are probably two <strong>of</strong><br />
the plants referred to by Carriere. They prove to be U. laevis, <strong>of</strong> which plant<strong>in</strong>gs<br />
had been made at that locality <strong>in</strong> the 18th century, and not U. glabra<br />
most <strong>of</strong> the U. laevis.<br />
eaten by <strong>in</strong>sects whilst those <strong>of</strong> the common type are. Through<br />
(U. communis) which had been planted to replace<br />
’Oxfortii’ (Wesmael <strong>in</strong> Bull. Fed. Soc. Hort. Belg. 1862: 389. 1863, as U. campestris<br />
var. nuda subvar. fastigiata oxfortii Hort. Vilv. ) . Described as a py-<br />
’SAR-<br />
ramidal tree with the leaves not ly<strong>in</strong>g aga<strong>in</strong>st the branches. Possibly =<br />
NIENSIS’.<br />
’Oxoniensis’ (Audibert, Tonelle, France, Cat. 2, p. 53. 1831-32,<br />
69 9<br />
as U. suberosa<br />
oxoniensis, without description; Wesmael <strong>in</strong> Bull. Fed. Soc. Hort. Belg. 1862:<br />
389. 1863, as U. campestris var. nuda subvar. fastigiata oxoniensis Hort. Vilv.).<br />
Described as a pyramidal tree with the leaves perceptibly ly<strong>in</strong>g<br />
branches. Possibly<br />
an error for ’Exoniensis’.<br />
towards the<br />
’Parasol’ (Koch, Dendr. 2 (1) : 417. 1872, name <strong>in</strong> synonymy ) _ ’HORIZONTALIS’.<br />
’PENDENS’ (Rehder <strong>in</strong> Jour. Arnold Arb. 26: 473. 1945, as U. parvifolia f. pen-<br />
dens). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g long, loosely pendulous branches. Orig<strong>in</strong>ated <strong>in</strong><br />
California before 1930 from seed <strong>of</strong> the typical plant received from Ch<strong>in</strong>a.<br />
U. parvifolia.<br />
pendula (Aiton, Hort. Kew. 1: 320. 1789, as U. americana var. pendula). Has<br />
a vase-shaped habit but with branches pendulous at their ends. This habit is<br />
part <strong>of</strong> the natural variation <strong>of</strong> U. americana and would seem to warrant no<br />
higher botanical rank than forma. It is doubtful if the orig<strong>in</strong>al clone cultivated<br />
<strong>in</strong> Brita<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> 1752 still exists. It was later confused with a pendulous variant <strong>of</strong><br />
-<br />
U. _<br />
glabra.<br />
’PENDULA’ (Masters, Hort. Duroverni 66. 1831, as U. campestris pendula, without<br />
description; Krussmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 537. 1962, as a cv.) = ‘SMITHII’.<br />
’Pendula’ (Audibert, Tonelle, France, Cat. 2, p. 53. 1831-32, as U. suberosa<br />
pendula, without description) = ‘PROPENDENS’.<br />
’Pendula’ (Loddiges, Hackney, London, Cat. 1836 [not seen]; Loudon, Arb. Frut.<br />
Brit. 3: 1398. 1838, as U. montana var. pendula; Kriissmann <strong>in</strong> Parey’s Blumengartn.<br />
ed. 2. 1: 519. 1958, as a cv.) = ‘HORIZONTALIS’.<br />
’PENDULA’ (David <strong>in</strong> Revue Hort. II. 4: 101. 1845, as U. campestris pendula;<br />
Krussmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 540. 1962, as a cv. ) . Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g<br />
small leaves with equal teeth and pendulous branches. U. pumila.<br />
’Pendula’ ( Kirchner <strong>in</strong> Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 565. 1864, not <strong>of</strong> Loudon<br />
1838, as U. montana var. pendula) = ’CAMPERDOWNII’.<br />
’PENDULA’ (C. de Vos, Handboek 20. 1887, as U. sativa pendula [not seen]);<br />
Boom, Ned. Dendr. 1: 158. 1959, as a cv.). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g slender
pendulous branches and hav<strong>in</strong>g been grown <strong>in</strong> Belgium <strong>in</strong> 1863. Young twigs<br />
may die back <strong>in</strong> hard w<strong>in</strong>ters. U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’Pendula’ (Meehan, Garden & Forest 2: 286. 1889, as U. fulva pendula). Described<br />
as be<strong>in</strong>g a weep<strong>in</strong>g elm and correctly identified as U. americana and<br />
not U. rubra (U. fulva). =<br />
‘BEEBE’S WEEPING’.<br />
Tendula Camperdownii’ (Henry <strong>in</strong> Elwes & Henry,<br />
70<br />
Trees Gr. Brit. Irel. 7: 1867.<br />
1913, as U. montana var. pendula camperdowni Hort.) = ’CAMPERDOWNII’.<br />
’PENDULA MACROPHYLLA’ (Maxwell ex Jour. Roy. Hort. Soc. 18: 91. 1895, as<br />
U. montana var. pendula macrophylla, without description ) . U. glabra.<br />
’Pendula Nova’ (Kirchner <strong>in</strong> Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 565. 1864, as<br />
U. montana pendula nova Hort., name <strong>in</strong> synonymy) = ‘CAMPERDOWNII’.<br />
’PENDULA VARIEGATA’ (Hartwig & Riimpler, Ill. Geholzb. 583. 1875, as U. montana<br />
var. pendula variegata Hort. ) . Described as a form <strong>of</strong> ’Pendula’ with beautiful<br />
white-variegated leaves. U. glabra.<br />
’Pendul<strong>in</strong>a’ (S<strong>in</strong>clair <strong>in</strong> Donn, Hort. Cantab. ed. 12. 110. 1831, as U. pendul<strong>in</strong>a,<br />
without description) = ’HORIZONTALIS’?<br />
‘PICTiJRATA’ (Simon-Louis, Metz, France, Cat. 1880, p. 66, as U. picturata<br />
Cripps). Said to differ little from ’Variegata’ but with larger leaves. Probably<br />
U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
‘PiTTEUSS’ (Morren <strong>in</strong> Jour. Agric. Prat. Belg. 1: 114, fig. 1848, as L’Orme Pitteurs,<br />
& Belg. Hort. 2: 133. 1852). Described as a tall tree, with very large (20<br />
cm. long X 18-19 cm. broad) convex rounded leaves, a little attenuate at the<br />
apex and with prom<strong>in</strong>ent nerves. Said to have orig<strong>in</strong>ated<br />
at St. Trond, Belgium. U. X hollandica.<br />
<strong>in</strong> the Pitteurs estate<br />
’Pitteursii’ (Wesmael <strong>in</strong> Bull. Fed. Soc. Hort. Belg. 1862: 382. 1863, as U. cam-<br />
ed. 2. 1: 519.<br />
pestris var. Pitteursii Mor.; Kriissmann <strong>in</strong> Parey’s Blumengartn.<br />
1958, as a cv.) = ’PITTEURS’.<br />
’Pitteursii Pendula’ (C. de Vos, Handboek, Supplement 16. 1890, as U. Pitteursii<br />
pendula [not seen]). Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Mr. Heijbroek<br />
the material under this name<br />
obta<strong>in</strong>ed by de Vos proved to be identifiable with U. verschaffeltii, which is a<br />
Zelkova.<br />
‘PLANEREOIDES’ ( Carriere <strong>in</strong> Revue Hort. 1875: 287, fig. 48. 1875, as U. planereoides).<br />
Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g leaves like Planera. Possibly U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’PLANIFOLIA’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1377. 1838, as U. campestris var.<br />
planifolia Hort. ) . Described as "a handsome small tree, closely resembl<strong>in</strong>g U.<br />
campestris var. parvi f olia" ( i.e. U. parvifolia Jacq. ) . Species uncerta<strong>in</strong> and<br />
now ext<strong>in</strong>ct.<br />
probably<br />
Tlumosa’ (C. de Vos, Woordenboek 136. 1867, as U. plumosa) = ’EXONIENSIS’.
’Praestans’ (Beterams <strong>in</strong> Mitt. Deut. Dendr. Ges. 20: 250. 1911, as U. praestans)<br />
= ‘MAJoR’.<br />
’<br />
’Primus’ (Sarcoxie Nurseries, Sarcoxie, Missouri, U. S. Plant Patent No. 1747, July<br />
1958, as ’Improved Coolshade variety Primus’) = ’IMPROVED COOLSHADE’.<br />
’PRINCETON’ (Pr<strong>in</strong>ceton Nurseries, New Jersey, Cat. 1934, p. 107). Orig<strong>in</strong>ally<br />
selected <strong>in</strong> 1922 by Pr<strong>in</strong>ceton Nurseries for the large healthy foliage, usually<br />
vigorous growth habit and resistance to Elm Leaf Beetle. Vase type similar<br />
to ’Mol<strong>in</strong>e’ but with a slightly more spread<strong>in</strong>g top. U. americana.<br />
’PROPENDENS’ (Schneider, Ill. Handb. Laubh. 1: 220. 1904, as U. glabra var.<br />
suberosa f. propendens; Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 535. 1962, as a cv. ) .<br />
Described as "a form <strong>of</strong> var. suberosa with pendulous branches." U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’Propendens Lombarts’ (Lombarts, Zundert, Netherlands, Cat. 1955-56, p. 85, as<br />
U. procera ’propendens Lombarts’). = ’LOMBARTSII’.<br />
‘PULVERULENTA’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. 1885, p. 82, as U. scabra<br />
vim<strong>in</strong>alis pulverulenta Hort., without description; Dippel,<br />
71 1<br />
Handb. Laubh. 2:<br />
30. 1892). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g the leaves streaked with white and yellow. U.<br />
X vim<strong>in</strong>alis (that is U. procera var. vim<strong>in</strong>alis sensu Rehder).<br />
‘PUMILA’ (Loddiges, Hackney, London, Cat. 1823, p. 35, as U. montana pumila,<br />
not U. pumila L., without description). Species unknown and probably ext<strong>in</strong>ct.<br />
’Punctata’ (Simon-Louis Nurseries, Metz, France, Cat. 1886-87, p. 60,<br />
as U. cam-<br />
pestris punctata ) . Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g spotted leaves. = U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia ‘VARIE-.<br />
’<br />
GATA’?<br />
’PUNCTATA’ (Schelle <strong>in</strong> Beissner et al., Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 87. 1903, as<br />
U. effusa f. punctata Hort., without description; Schneider, Ill. Handb. Laubh.<br />
1: 213. 1904). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g leaves flecked with white. U. laevis.<br />
’PUNCTATA’ (Schelle <strong>in</strong> Beissner et al., Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 87. 1903, as U.<br />
( ellipticaP ) punctata Hort., without description). Species doubtful.<br />
’Punctata’ ( Schelle <strong>in</strong> Beissner et al., Laubh.-Benenn. 83. 1903, as U. campestris<br />
punctata Hort., without description). = ’ARGENTEO-VARIEGATA’. I.<br />
’Purple Leaf’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 5. 253. 1949, as U. procera Purple Leaf,<br />
without description) = ’PURPUREA’.<br />
‘PURPURASCENS’ ( Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 236. 1877, as U. campestris var. purpurascens,<br />
without description; Schneider, Ill. Handb. Laubh. 1: 220. 1904; Kriissmann,<br />
Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 540. 1962, as a cv.). Said to have leaves about<br />
1 <strong>in</strong>ch long t<strong>in</strong>ged with purple or purplish when young, dark green later, and<br />
normally rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g a shrub. Possibly U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
‘PuRruaEn’ (Wesmael <strong>in</strong> Bull. Fed. Soc. Hort. Belg. 1862: 390. 1863,<br />
pestris var. purpurea Hort. Vilv.; Kriissmann <strong>in</strong> Parey’s Blumengartn.<br />
as U. cam-<br />
ed. 2.
1: 519. 1958, as a cv. ) . Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g the leaves t<strong>in</strong>ged with dark purplebrown<br />
when unfold<strong>in</strong>g and reddish-green later. Cultivated <strong>in</strong> Belgium by 1863.<br />
Probably U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’Purpurea Corylifolia’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. 1885, p. 82, as<br />
U. scabra purpurea corylifolia Hort., without description) = ’CORYLIFOLIA<br />
PURPUREA’.<br />
’Purpurea Nigricans’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. 1885, p. 82,<br />
scabra purpurea nigricans Hort., without description) _<br />
[<br />
72 2<br />
as U.<br />
‘LATTFOLIA NIGRICANS’.<br />
’PYRAMIDALIS’ (Audibert, Tonelle, France, Cat. 2, p. 53. 1831-32, as U. campestris<br />
pyramidalis. Referred to as pyramidal. Possibly U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’Pyramidalis’ (Wesmael <strong>in</strong> Bull. Fed. Soc. Hort. Belg. 1862: 387. 1863, as U.<br />
americana var. pyramidalis Hort.) = ’PYRAMIDATA’.<br />
’Pyramidalis’ (C. de Vos, Woordenboek 137. 1867, as U. pyramidalis) - U.<br />
angustifolia var. cornubiensis ( U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia var. cornubiensis ) .<br />
’Pyramidalis’ (Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 237. 1877, as U. montana var. pyramidalis,<br />
without description) = ’DAMPIERI’.<br />
’Pyramidalis’ ( Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 236. 1877, as U. suberosa var. pyramidalis,<br />
without description) = ‘SARNrENSIS’.<br />
’PYRAMIDALIS’ (Gibbs <strong>in</strong> Gard. Chron. III. 71: 227. 1922, as U. campestris pyramidalis).<br />
A pyramidal tree orig<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g from a sport at Aldenham about 1890.<br />
U. procera.<br />
‘PYRAMIDALIS BERTINII’ ( Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 236. 1877, as U. cam~P.stris var.<br />
pyramidalis Bert<strong>in</strong>i, without description). Possibly U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’PYRAMIDALIS FIOREI’ ( Charles Fiore Nurseries, Prairie View, Ill<strong>in</strong>ois, Cat. Spr<strong>in</strong>g<br />
1957, p. 27). Described as be<strong>in</strong>g strictly pyramidal <strong>in</strong> form, selected from a<br />
plant <strong>in</strong> nursery grounds at Prairie View about 1950. U. pumila.<br />
’PYRAMIDATA’ ( Baudriller, Angers, France, Cat. 43, p. 116. 1880, as U. americana<br />
U. americana.<br />
pyramidata). Described as pyramidal.<br />
’QUEEN CITY’ (Sheridan Nurseries, Sheridan, Ontario, Cat. 1949, p. 34). Selected<br />
about 1944, the orig<strong>in</strong>al tree grow<strong>in</strong>g on the Lake Shore Blvd., Toronto; a very<br />
symmetrical vase-shaped, densely branched tree, the lateral branches spread<strong>in</strong>g<br />
horizontally,<br />
and with a rather smooth bark. U. americana.<br />
’RAMULOSA’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1405. 1838, as U. (montana) glabra<br />
var. ramulosa Booth, without description). U. glabra.<br />
’Replicata’ (Masters, Hort. Duroverni 67. 1831, as var. replicata, name <strong>in</strong> synonymy,<br />
without description) = ’EXONIENSIS’.<br />
‘ROSEHILL’ (Willis Nursery Co., Ottawa, Kansas, Cat. Fall 1958 - Spr<strong>in</strong>g 1959,<br />
p. 18. 1958). A hybrid <strong>of</strong> U. pumila and U. rubra. A selection made <strong>in</strong> 1951
and described as grow<strong>in</strong>g a little more slowly than ’Willis’ but carry<strong>in</strong>g a<br />
heavier crown for the height, also that it branches well and has very attractive<br />
foliage. Raised by Rose Hill Nurseries, Kansas City, Missouri.<br />
‘Rosscelsii’ (Schelle <strong>in</strong> Beissner et al., Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 83. 1903, as<br />
U. campestris var. Rosscelsii Hort.). Mistake for Rosseelsii. = U. X vim<strong>in</strong>alis<br />
’AUREA’.<br />
‘Rosseelsii’ (Koch, Dendr. 2 ( 1 ) : 412. 1872, as U. Rosseelsii, name <strong>in</strong> synonymy)<br />
= U. X vim<strong>in</strong>alis ’AuREA’.<br />
’ROTUNDIFOLIA’ (Mottet <strong>in</strong> Nicholson & Mottet, Dict. Prat. Hort. 5: 383. 1898, as<br />
U. campestris var. rotundifolia Hort.). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g leaves rounded,<br />
oval or suborbicular. Possibly U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’Rubescens’ (Schwer<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> Mitt. Deut. Dendr. Ges. 20: 423. 1911, as U. effusa<br />
rubescens). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g leaves which turn a beautiful blood-red <strong>in</strong> the<br />
autumn. = U. laevis ’COLORANS’? (U. var. campestris rubescens Herder <strong>in</strong><br />
Gartenflora 20: 347. 1871, is possibly an earlier publication <strong>of</strong> this cultivar<br />
under the name <strong>of</strong> another species).<br />
‘RuRRA’ (Simon-Louis, Metz, France, Cat. 1869, p. 97, as U. campestris rubra;<br />
Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 536. 1962, as a cv.). Dist<strong>in</strong>guished by the<br />
<strong>in</strong>ner bark <strong>of</strong> young branchlets deep red. U, glabra.<br />
’RUEPPELLII’ ( Spath, Berl<strong>in</strong>, Germany, Cat. 73, p. 124. 1888-1889, as U. campestris<br />
Rueppelli; Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 535. 1962, as a cv. ) . Described<br />
as a pyramidal tree with a dist<strong>in</strong>ct stem and numerous ascend<strong>in</strong>g branches<br />
form<strong>in</strong>g a globose or ovoid crown. U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
‘RUFA’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. Nachtrag 1. 1887, p. 28, as U.<br />
campestris f. rufa, without description). Possibly U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
‘RucosA’ (Audibert, Tonelle, France, Cat. 1817, p. 23, as U. campestris var.<br />
rugosa, without description; Hartwig & Riimpler, Ill. Geholzb. 583. 1875, as U.<br />
montana var. rugosa Hort.). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g very hard, roughly harsh,<br />
somewhat folded leaves, and as be<strong>in</strong>g pramidal and thick bushy. U. glabra.<br />
‘RucosA’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1398. 1838, as U. montana var. rugosa<br />
Masters). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g "dark reddish-brown bark, crack<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to short<br />
regular pieces, very like Acer campestris; a tree <strong>of</strong> spread<strong>in</strong>g growth<br />
ate size." Possibly different from the previous cultivar. U. glabra.<br />
73<br />
and moder-<br />
’Rugosa Pendula’ (Kirchner <strong>in</strong> Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 566. 1864, as<br />
U. rugosa pendula Hort., name <strong>in</strong> synonymy) = ’PROPENDENS’.<br />
‘SARNiENSis’ (Loddiges, Hackney, London, Cat. 1836 [not seen]; Boom, Ned.<br />
Dendr. 1: 158. 1959, as a cv. ) . The Jersey, Guernsey or Wheatley Elm. Usually<br />
treated as a variety <strong>of</strong> U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia; Dr. Melville believes it is more<br />
and U. X hollandica,<br />
correctly considered as a hybrid between U. angustifolia<br />
for which the botanical name would be U. X sarniensis (Loud.) Bancr<strong>of</strong>t.<br />
However the orig<strong>in</strong>al clone may still be called cultivar ’Sarniensis’.
’SCAMPSTONIENSIS’ ( Kirchner <strong>in</strong> Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 560. 1864, as<br />
U. glabra var. Scampstoniensis Loud. ) . The Scampston Elm. Orig<strong>in</strong>ated at<br />
Scampston Hall, Yorkshire, England, before 1810. A quick grow<strong>in</strong>g, weep<strong>in</strong>g<br />
form possibly no longer <strong>in</strong> existence. Probably a form <strong>of</strong> U. X hollandica.<br />
’Scampstoniensis Pendula’ (Kirchner <strong>in</strong> Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 560.<br />
1864, as U. Scampstoniensis pendula). Said to be <strong>of</strong> a very beautiful weep<strong>in</strong>g<br />
habit but scarcely different from U. montana = pendula U. glabra ’PENDULA’?<br />
‘SCHUUPHOEK’ (Van ’t Weste<strong>in</strong>de, Holland, Cat. 27, p. 28. 1957-58 [not seen]).<br />
An old, nameless clone grow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> several places around Goes, Holland, retaken<br />
<strong>in</strong>to cultivation and named by Van ’t Weste<strong>in</strong>de. Of high growth, the trunk<br />
be<strong>in</strong>g covered with not-too-heavy branches over its whole length, and resistant<br />
to exposure. U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
‘SEMPERVIRENS’ (Bailey & Bailey, Hortus Second 747. 1941). Said to be an<br />
evergreen form <strong>of</strong> the Ch<strong>in</strong>ese Elm, but can be deciduous or evergreen depend<strong>in</strong>g<br />
upon the climate. U. parvifolia.<br />
‘SERICEA’ ( Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 236. 1877, as U. campestris var. sericea, without<br />
description). Possibly U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’SERPENTINA’ (Koch, Dendr. 2 ( 1 ) : 417. 1872, as U. serpent<strong>in</strong>a, name <strong>in</strong> synonymy<br />
; Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 536. 1962, as a cv. ) . Given by Koch as a<br />
synonym <strong>of</strong> ’Pendula’. Plants with this name at Kew have been identified by<br />
Dr. Melville as <strong>Ulmus</strong> glabra <strong>in</strong>trogressed by U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia and dist<strong>in</strong>ct from<br />
’Camperdownii’. It is said to have more pronounced zig-zag twigs.<br />
‘Siber-Ansaloni’ (Ansaloni Nurseries, Bologna, Italy, Cat. 1946-47, p. 28) =<br />
’ANSALONI’.<br />
’Siberica’ ( Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 237. 1877, as U. sibirica Hort., <strong>in</strong> synonymy,<br />
= without description) U. pumila ’PENDULA’.<br />
‘SMITHII’ (Henry <strong>in</strong> Elwes & Henry, Trees Gr. Brit. Irel. 7: 1868. t.412, fig. 24.<br />
1913, as U. Smithii). The Downton Elm, first named as such by Sab<strong>in</strong>e (ex<br />
Knight <strong>in</strong> Trans. Hort. Soc. Lond. 5: 146. 1824, as the Downton Ehn ) . Raised<br />
at Worcester from seed obta<strong>in</strong>ed from a tree <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong> 1810 <strong>in</strong> Smith’s Nursery<br />
Nott<strong>in</strong>ghamshire. Some seedl<strong>in</strong>gs were purchased by Mr. Knight<br />
74 ~<br />
<strong>of</strong> Downton<br />
Castle <strong>of</strong> which one turned out to be pendulous. It has the habit <strong>of</strong> ascend<strong>in</strong>g<br />
branches but pendulous branchlets. U. X hollandica.<br />
’SOWERBYI’ (Moss, Cambr. Brit. Fl. 2: 90. 1914, as U. nitens var. sowerbyi Moss).<br />
Described as a smaller tree than var. Hunnybunii, the branches shorter and the<br />
upper ones very tortuous; leaves smaller and acute; <strong>of</strong>ten planted. U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’SPECTABILIS’. Appeared about 1915 <strong>in</strong> Pallesens Nursery, Kold<strong>in</strong>g, Denmark.<br />
but this<br />
Selected for its extremely rapid growth <strong>in</strong> the first two or so years<br />
characteristic lessened as the plants grew older, and it seems to have dropped<br />
out <strong>of</strong> cultivation. U. glabra.
’STAR’ ( Plumfield Nurseries, Fremont, Nebraska, Wholesale Cat. 1957 [not seen]).<br />
Selected about 1945, as grafts from a local tree <strong>of</strong> compact growth and much<br />
branched, globe-shaped head. U. americana.<br />
’Striata’ (Audibert, Tonelle, France, Cat. 2, p. 53. 1831-32, as U. campestris<br />
striata). Possibly a typographic error = ‘S~uCTA’.<br />
‘STRICTA’ (Audibert, Tonelle, France, Cat. 1817, p. 23, as U. campestris var.<br />
stricta). Described as <strong>of</strong> very rigid growth. A specimen under this name <strong>in</strong><br />
Herb. Nicholson at Kew has been identified by Dr. Melville as U. X vim<strong>in</strong>alis.<br />
suberosa (Moench, Verz. Baume Weissenst. 136. 1785, as U. suberosa). Said to<br />
differ chiefly <strong>in</strong> the corky-w<strong>in</strong>ged branches but this is a juvenile character<br />
which occurs here and there <strong>in</strong> otherwise unrelated populations <strong>of</strong> U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia<br />
and related elms and is <strong>in</strong>applicable, along with fungosa, and possibly alata,<br />
as the name <strong>of</strong> a clone or cultivar.<br />
’Suberosa Alata’ (Kirchner <strong>in</strong> Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 556. 1864, as<br />
U. campestris var. suberosa alata Hort. ) . Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g corky pendulous<br />
branches = ’PROPENDENS’?<br />
’Suberosa Pendula’ (Audibert, Tonelle, France, Cat. 1831-32, p. 53,<br />
as U.<br />
suberosa pendula, without description; Spath, Berl<strong>in</strong>, Germany, Cat. 69, p. 9.<br />
1887, as U. campestris suberosa pendula Hort. ) _ ’PROPENDENS’.<br />
‘SusEROSn ToRZ-vosw’ ( Schelle <strong>in</strong> Beissner et al., Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 84. 1903,<br />
as U. campestris var. (?) suberosa tortuosa Hort., without description). U.<br />
carp<strong>in</strong>i f olia? ~<br />
‘SusEROSa VARIEGATA’ (Hartwig & Rumpler, Ill. Geholzb. 579. 1875, as U. campestris<br />
var. suberosa variegata Hort. ) . Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g leaves with very<br />
white streaks. Possibly a cultivar <strong>of</strong> U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia or U. X vim<strong>in</strong>alis, see<br />
comments under U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia’Variegata’.<br />
’Sublac<strong>in</strong>iatus’ (Mathieu, Fl. Gen. Belg. 1: 480. 1853, as U. campestris var.<br />
sublac<strong>in</strong>iatus) = ’CRISPA’.<br />
‘SuPERRn’ (Morren <strong>in</strong> Jour. Agric. Prat. Belg. 1: 411. 1848, as U. montana var.<br />
superba; Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 537. 1962, as a cv.). Raised <strong>in</strong><br />
Masters Nursery near Canterbury, probably early <strong>in</strong> the 19th century, and<br />
referred to as Master’s Canterbury seedl<strong>in</strong>g; later known by the epithet major<br />
(but not that <strong>of</strong> Smith). U. X hollandica.<br />
’Superba’ (Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 237. 1877, as U. montana var. superba, name<br />
<strong>in</strong> synonymy) = ’CORNUTA’.<br />
’Tabletop’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 5. 253. 1949, as U. glabra Tabletop, without<br />
description) = ’HORIZONTALIS’.<br />
’TILIAEFOLIA’ (Host, Fl. Austr. 1: 329. 1827, as U. tiliae f olia ) .<br />
75 ~<br />
Said to be a form<br />
with ovate leaves, rounded or subcordate, and usually not strongly oblique at<br />
the base. U. glabra.
’TOMENTOSA’ (Kirchner <strong>in</strong> Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 566. 1864, as U.<br />
tomentosa Hort. ) . Later described as hav<strong>in</strong>g the undersides <strong>of</strong> leaves with<br />
thick, s<strong>of</strong>t, hairs giv<strong>in</strong>g a pronounced gray-green appearance. U. glabra.<br />
’ToRTuosA’ (Host, Fl. Austr. 1: 330. 1827, as U. tortuosa). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g<br />
a trunk and branches which zig-zag. U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
‘TRICOLOR’ (C. de Vos, Woordenboek 137. 1867, as U. suberosa tricolor). Described<br />
as beautifully silver-variegated, the leaves near the top <strong>of</strong> grow<strong>in</strong>g<br />
branches colored red, but not a vigorous grower. U. X hollandica.<br />
‘Tricuspis’ (Koch, Dendr. 2 (1) : 415. 1872, as U. tricuspis Hort.) = ‘CORNUTA’.<br />
’Tridens’ (Hartig, Vollst. Naturg. Forstl. Culturpfl. 460. 1850, as U. tridens) _<br />
’CORNUTA’.<br />
’Triserrata’ ( Kirchner <strong>in</strong> Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 567. 1864, as U. triserrata<br />
Hort.) = ’CORNUTA’.<br />
’Turkestanica’ (Regel <strong>in</strong> Gartenflora 33: 28. 1884, as U. turkestanica, without<br />
description) = ’UMBRACULIFERA’.<br />
’UMBRACULIFERA’ (Trautvetter <strong>in</strong> Act. Hort. Petrop. 2: 590. 1873, as U. campestris<br />
var. umbraculi f era; Boom, Ned. Dendr. 1: 158. 1959, as a cv. ) . A tree with<br />
a dense globose head, <strong>in</strong>troduced to European gardens from Persia [?], before<br />
1878. U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’UMBRACULIFERA GRACILIS’ ( Spath, Berl<strong>in</strong>, Germany, Cat. 100, p. 121. 1897-98,<br />
as U. campestris umbraculifera gracilis). Described as a form <strong>of</strong> var. umbraculifera<br />
form<strong>in</strong>g a long oval and not a globose crown, also with slenderer, more<br />
crowded branches and smaller leaves. Orig<strong>in</strong>ated <strong>in</strong> Spath’s nursery <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong>,<br />
as a shoot from ’Umbraculifera’. U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’Urnii’ (Siebenthaler Co., Dayton, Ohio, Cat. 122, p. 15. 1931, as U. urni, without<br />
description). See ’Vase’.<br />
’Urticaefolia’ (Audibert, Tonelle, France, Cat. 2, p. 53. 1831-32, as U. urticae-<br />
= folia ‘CBISrA’.<br />
’URTICAEFOLIA’ (Jacques <strong>in</strong> Revue Hort. 2: 128. 1832, as <strong>in</strong> U. urticae f olia ) . De-<br />
scribed as hav<strong>in</strong>g deeply toothed leaves, the teeth unequal and very po<strong>in</strong>ted<br />
Raised as a chance seedl<strong>in</strong>g by Jacques <strong>in</strong> 1830, now probably lost from cultiva-<br />
tion. U. laevis.<br />
’Van Houttei’ (Schelle <strong>in</strong> Beissner et al., Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 86. 1903, as<br />
‘Loms VAN<br />
U. montana lutescens van Houttei Hort., without description) ~ =<br />
HOUTTE’.<br />
‘VARIECATA’ (Dumont de Courset, Bot. Cult. 3: 700. 1802, as U. campestris var.<br />
glabra variegata; Boom, Ned. Dendr. 1: 158. 1959, as a cv. ) . Described as<br />
hav<strong>in</strong>g leaves spotted with white, especially near the marg<strong>in</strong>s.<br />
[76<br />
Said to have been
cultivated <strong>in</strong> France <strong>in</strong> 1772. Variegated forms arise frequently<br />
77 ]<br />
and several<br />
clones may have been known under this name, most <strong>of</strong> them U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia,<br />
but variegated forms <strong>of</strong> U. X vegeta have also been known by this name.<br />
’Variegata’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1405. 1838, as U. (montana) glabra var.<br />
variegata). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g variegated leaves. = U. glabra ‘ALBO-VARIE-<br />
GATA’ ?<br />
’Variegata’ (Wesmael <strong>in</strong> Bull. Fed. Soc. Hort. Belg.<br />
1862: 390. 1863, as U. cam-<br />
pestris var. nuda subvar. microphylla variegata Hort. Vilv.). Described as<br />
hav<strong>in</strong>g the leaves spotted with white. U. = carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia, possibly ‘VARIEGATA’.<br />
‘VARiEGATA’ (Wesmael <strong>in</strong> Bull. Fed. Soc. Hort. Belg. 1862: 387. 1863, as U. americana<br />
var. variegata Hort.). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g leaves spotted with white.<br />
U. americana.<br />
’Variegata’ (Lee ex Jour. Roy. Hort. Soc. 6: cxxix. 1880, as U. campestris variegata).<br />
Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g leaves like those <strong>of</strong> Ficus Parcellii, i.e., marked<br />
with a creamy-white mosaic. Probably =<br />
’ARGENTEO-VARIEGATA’. I.<br />
’Variegata’ (Dippel, Handb. Laubh. 2: 25. 1892, as U. campestris var. variegata<br />
Hort.) = ’ARGENTEO-VARIEGATA’. _ _<br />
_-<br />
’Variegata’ (Bean, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs, ed. 3. 272. 1925, as U. major<br />
var. variegata, without description) = ’ELEGANTO-VARIEGATA’.<br />
’VARIEGATA NoVA’ ( Nicholson, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs 2: 137. 1896, as<br />
U. campestris var. variegata nova Hort., without description; Henry <strong>in</strong> Elwes<br />
& Henry, Trees Gr. Brit. Irel. 7: 1895. 1913). Said to bear "leaves which are<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten much reduced <strong>in</strong> size and entirely whitish. Occasionally branches are<br />
conf<strong>in</strong>ed to the<br />
produced bear<strong>in</strong>g leaves <strong>of</strong> normal size with the variegation<br />
marg<strong>in</strong> and one or two branches with green leaves." Possibly U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.<br />
’Vase’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 5. 253. 1949, as U. americana Vase, without<br />
description). The name for a growth form neither clonal nor a true cultivar.<br />
U. americana.<br />
’Vaseyi" (Bailey & Bailey, Hortus Second 747. 1941, as U. vaseyi) _ ’Vase’<br />
(which see).<br />
’VEGETA’ (L<strong>in</strong>dley <strong>in</strong> Donn, Hort. Cantab. ed. 10. 193. 1823, without description;<br />
Kriissmann <strong>in</strong> Parey’s Blumengartn. ed. 2. 1: 519. 1958, as a cv. ) . The Hunt<strong>in</strong>gdon<br />
or Chichester Elm, said to have orig<strong>in</strong>ated at Wood & Ingrams Nursery<br />
at Hunt<strong>in</strong>gdon, <strong>in</strong> England, about the middle <strong>of</strong> the 18th century. Considered<br />
by Dr. Melville as a hybrid <strong>of</strong> U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia X glabra for which it is the earliest<br />
epithet, but treated by Rehder and others as a variety <strong>of</strong> the hybrid U. X hol-<br />
<strong>in</strong> either case.<br />
landica. The widespread clone may be known as <strong>Ulmus</strong> ‘Vegeta’<br />
’VIMINALIS’ (Masters, Hort. Durovemi 66. 1831, as U. campestris vim<strong>in</strong>alis,<br />
without description; Boom, Ned. Dendr. 1: 158. 1959, as a cv.). Described as
a tree with ascend<strong>in</strong>g branches but pendulous branchlets, slightly pubescent<br />
while young; leaves obovate to narrow-elliptic, 2-6 cm. long, acum<strong>in</strong>ate, <strong>in</strong>cised<br />
doubly serrate, scabrous above, slightly pubescent beneath. Said to have been<br />
raised by Mr. Masters <strong>in</strong> 1817. Usually treated as a variety <strong>of</strong> U. procera but<br />
accord<strong>in</strong>g to Dr. Melville this is <strong>of</strong> hybrid orig<strong>in</strong>: U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia X plotii, and<br />
is the correct epithet for this hybrid, as U. X vim<strong>in</strong>alis. However the orig<strong>in</strong>al<br />
clone may still be known as <strong>Ulmus</strong> ’Vim<strong>in</strong>alis’.<br />
’Vim<strong>in</strong>alis Argentea’ (Hillier, W<strong>in</strong>chester, England, Cat. 2P, p.<br />
100. 1938, as<br />
U. vim<strong>in</strong>alis argentea). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g leaves variegated with silver.<br />
U. X vim<strong>in</strong>alis (that is U. var. procera vim<strong>in</strong>alis sensu Rehder).<br />
’Vim<strong>in</strong>alis Aurea’ (Henry <strong>in</strong> Elwes & Henry, Trees Gr. Brit. Irel. 7: 1907. 1913,<br />
as U. campestris var. vim<strong>in</strong>alis aurea ) = U. X vim<strong>in</strong>alis ‘AUREA’.<br />
’Vim<strong>in</strong>alis Gracilis’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. 1885, p. 82, as U.<br />
scabra vim<strong>in</strong>alis gracilis Hort., without description) = ’VIMINALIS’.<br />
’VIMINALIS MARGINATA’ ( Kirchner <strong>in</strong> Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 556. 1864,<br />
as U. campestris var. vim<strong>in</strong>alis marg<strong>in</strong>ata Hort.). Said to be a form <strong>of</strong> ‘Vim<strong>in</strong>alis’<br />
with the leaves variegated with creamy white near the marg<strong>in</strong>.<br />
’Vim<strong>in</strong>alis Marmorata’ ( Schelle <strong>in</strong> Beissner et al., Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 85.<br />
1903, as U. montana vim<strong>in</strong>alis marmorata Hort., without description) = ’PUL-<br />
VERULENTA’.<br />
’Vim<strong>in</strong>alis Pendula’ (Masters <strong>in</strong> Jour. Roy. Hort. Soc. 13: 90. 1891,<br />
pendula, without description) = ’VIMINALIS’.<br />
78 ]<br />
as U. vim<strong>in</strong>alis<br />
’Vim<strong>in</strong>alis Pulverulenta’ (Hartwig, Ill. Geholzb. ed. 2. 394. 1892, as L’. scabra<br />
var. vim<strong>in</strong>alis pulverulenta Hort. ) . Described as the pulverulent ‘Vim<strong>in</strong>alis’. _<br />
’PULVERULENTA’.<br />
’VIMINALIS STRICTA’ (Boulger <strong>in</strong> Gard. Chron. II. 12: 298. 1879, as U. campestris<br />
vim<strong>in</strong>alis stricta Loudon, without description).<br />
’Vim<strong>in</strong>alis Superba’ ( Schelle <strong>in</strong> Beissner et al., Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 85. 1903,<br />
as U. campestris vim<strong>in</strong>alis superba Hort., name <strong>in</strong> synonymy, without descrip-<br />
= tion) ’VIMINALIS MARGINATA’.<br />
’Vim<strong>in</strong>alis Variegata’ (Lee ex Jour. Roy. Hort. Soc. 18: 90. 1895,<br />
variegata, without description) = ’VIMINALIS MARGINATA’.<br />
as U. vim<strong>in</strong>alis<br />
’VIRENS’ (Masters, Hort. Duroverni 66. 1831, as U. virens, without description;<br />
Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1376. 1838, as U. campestris var. virens). The<br />
Kidbrook Elm. Described as be<strong>in</strong>g almost evergreen <strong>in</strong> a mild w<strong>in</strong>ter; the bark<br />
is red and the tree <strong>of</strong> a spread<strong>in</strong>g habit. U. X hollandica.<br />
‘VIRGATA’ (Pep<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> Revue Hort. 1865: 347. 1865, as U. campestris virgata and<br />
U. virgata). Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g slender, erect branches giv<strong>in</strong>g the tree a<br />
fastigiate shape. Planted before 1789 near Nangis, Se<strong>in</strong>e-et-Mame. U. carp<strong>in</strong>ifolia.
’Virg<strong>in</strong>alis’ (Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 235. 1877, as U. campestris var. virg<strong>in</strong>alis,<br />
name <strong>in</strong> synonymy) = ’VIMINALIS’.<br />
‘VlscosA’ (Loddiges, Hackney, England, Cat. 1836 ex Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3:<br />
1378. 1838, as U. viscosa). Leaves rather large and dark green, with some<br />
anthocyan<strong>in</strong> pigment. An early specimen<br />
viscosa Audibert has been identified by<br />
79 ]<br />
<strong>in</strong> Herb. Dumortier named U.<br />
Dr. Melville as U. X hollandica.<br />
’WASHINGTON’ (Anon. ex Dame, Typical Elms & Other Trees <strong>of</strong> Mass. 25. 1890;<br />
Jack, Bull. Pop. Inf. Arnold Arb. III. 5: 69. 1931, as the "Wash<strong>in</strong>gton Elm").<br />
and distributed<br />
from the tree (now dead) under which George Wash<strong>in</strong>gton is reputed to have<br />
taken command <strong>of</strong> the Colonial Troops at Cambridge, Massachusetts, <strong>in</strong> 1775.<br />
U. americana.<br />
Not dist<strong>in</strong>guished morphologically but clonally propagated<br />
’WEBBIANA’ (Lee ex Simon-Louis, Metz, France, Cat. 1869, p. 97, as U. campestris<br />
Webbiana; Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 535. 1962, as a cv.). Said to<br />
be a form <strong>of</strong> the Cornish Elm with leaves folded longitud<strong>in</strong>ally, and to have been<br />
raised <strong>in</strong> Lee’s nursery about 1868, but possibly to be placed with U. X hollandica<br />
along with ’Viscosa’.<br />
’Wendworthii’ (Schelle <strong>in</strong> Beissner et al., Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 84. 1903, as<br />
U. campestris Wendworthii Hort., without description) - ’WENTWORTHII<br />
PENDULA’.<br />
’Wentworthiensis’ (Spath, Berl<strong>in</strong>, Germany, Cat. 143, p. 135. 1910-11, as U.<br />
campestris wentworthiensis) =<br />
’WENTWORTHII PENDULA’.<br />
’Wentworthii’ (Dippel, Handb. Laubh. 2: 24. 1892, as U. campestris Wentworthii)<br />
_ ‘WENTWORTHII PENDULA’.<br />
’WENTWORTHII PENDULA’ (C. de Vos, Handboek, Supplement, 16. 1890, as U.<br />
Wentworthii pendula [not seen] ). De Vos suggests it belongs <strong>in</strong> U. X hollan-<br />
dica but the Kew tree under this name has been identified by Dr. Melville as<br />
U. X vegeta.<br />
’Wheatley’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 5. 253. 1949, as U. procera Wheatley,<br />
without description) = ’SARNIENSIS’.<br />
’Wheatleyi’ ( Simon-Louis, Metz, France, Cat. 1869, p. 98 [not seen]) =<br />
’SARNIENSIS’.<br />
’WILLIS’ (Willis Nursery Co., Ottawa, Kansas, Cat. Fall 1958-Spr<strong>in</strong>g 1959, p. 18.<br />
1958). Probably a hybrid <strong>of</strong> U. pumila and U. rubra, although at first thought<br />
to be U. americana X U. pumila. A selection made by Mr. M<strong>in</strong>nick <strong>of</strong> Kansas<br />
City and first referred to as "Hybrid." Described as hav<strong>in</strong>g a smooth gray bark<br />
on young trees, large leaves resembl<strong>in</strong>g those <strong>of</strong> U. americana, and as be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong><br />
very rapid growth.<br />
‘WREDEI’ ( Jiihlke <strong>in</strong> Hamburg Gart.- & Blumenzeit. 33: 485. 1877, as U. Dampieri<br />
var. Wredei; Krussmann <strong>in</strong> Parey’s Blumengartn. ed. 2. 1: 519. 1958, as a cv.).
Described as a yellowish-leaved variant <strong>of</strong> ’Dampieri’. Orig<strong>in</strong>ated<br />
[ so :<br />
<strong>in</strong> 1875 at<br />
the Arboretum at Alt-Geltow, near Potsdam, Germany. It may be a chimaera<br />
as it <strong>of</strong>ten develops green twigs which are identical with ’Dampieri’. The Kew<br />
tree <strong>of</strong> this name has been identified by Dr. Melville as U. X hollandica.<br />
’Wreedi Aurea’ (Leach ex Jour. Roy. Hort. Soc. 16: lxi. 1893, as U. Wreedi aurea)<br />
= ’WREDEI’.<br />
‘YPREAU’ ( Poederle, Man. Arb. For. Belg. 266. 1772, as l’Orme Ypreau ) . Also<br />
called l’orme-teille, Orme-tilleul and l<strong>in</strong>dolm, each translatable as the Tilia-like<br />
This name<br />
has s<strong>in</strong>ce become the subject <strong>of</strong> much confusion, <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g two elms, a poplar,<br />
and a willow (see Huberty <strong>in</strong> Bull. Soc. Centr. For. Belg. 11: 571. 1904). U.<br />
X hollandica.<br />
elm. Formerly much planted <strong>in</strong> the region <strong>of</strong> Ypres <strong>in</strong> Belgium.